ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Living Wage

Heidi Alexander: What steps the Government are taking to encourage firms to pay a living wage.

Chris Williamson: What steps the Government are taking to encourage firms to pay a living wage.

Vincent Cable: The Government support a living wage and encourage businesses to pay it when it is affordable and not at the expense of jobs. We recognise that these have been challenging times and we applaud companies that have chosen to pay higher wages.

Heidi Alexander: The UK’s largest supermarkets, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Morrisons, together make billions of pounds in profits every year, but they still do not pay all their staff a living wage. Will the Secretary of State look at amending the corporate governance code to require all publicly listed companies to report annually the number of individuals they employ who earn less than a living wage?

Vincent Cable: That is an interesting suggestion for nudging companies in the right direction, and I will certainly have a look at it. I am certainly very opposed to coercive measures because those would simply add to unemployment, but I will reflect on that suggestion, which is a new one.

Chris Williamson: I am pleased that the Secretary of State says that he supports the living wage, but as he will know, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) has already pointed out, of the 4.8 million people who are paid less than the living wage, many work for multinational, highly profitable companies. What specific steps is he taking to encourage those highly profitable companies to pay the living wage? The people deserve to know that.

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman’s constituency is a good example of what is happening in the labour market. The claimant count is down to about 2.5%, which is much lower than it was when we took office. Many engineering companies are short of labour and wages are going up. We have been through a difficult period, but one of the success stories is that employment has massively increased—465,000 during the last year. His constituency is a very good example of the policies working.

David Nuttall: Does the Secretary of State agree that retailers would find it easier to pay higher wages if they were allowed to open all day on Sunday?

Vincent Cable: I suspect that it would make relatively little difference. We had a modest experiment at the time of the Olympics. The results did not show a great deal of real economic consequences, but we are always open to new evidence.

Andrew George: Provided that it does not undermine fair trade or UK competitiveness, a significant increase in the minimum wage would clearly be both desirable and the right thing to do. But will my right hon. Friend look particularly at the care sector, where I fear there is a race to the bottom as a result of there simply being a floor where the minimum wage has been set?

Vincent Cable: I remind my hon. Friend that, based on the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, the Government announced recently the biggest increase in cash terms since the financial crisis—a 3% increase, which is an increase in real terms. I suspect that with the central problem in the care sector, which is with domiciliary care workers whose travel times are not properly counted, we are dealing with an abuse of the minimum wage system, and it needs to be pursued in that context.

Mike Kane: A KPMG study found that the introduction of a living wage increased productivity and reduced sickness absenteeism and staff turnover. In fact, its introduction was cost-neutral for all these firms. As it makes such a good business case, why are the vast bulk of local authorities that have introduced a living wage Labour ones?

Vincent Cable: The process that the hon. Gentleman described is the right one: if it is good business practice, good businesses will follow it and out-compete their competitors, and I hope that that is what will happen.

Student Loans

Paul Blomfield: What recent estimate he has made of the resource accounting and budgeting charge on student loans.

David Willetts: We currently estimate the RAB charge to be around 45%. The estimate changes frequently in the light of new economic forecasts and will continue to change.

Paul Blomfield: Back in the days when the Minister was confidently predicting that the RAB charge would not rise above 32%, writing in The Independent in October 2012, he described a RAB charge of 38% as the worst outcome for the taxpayer. How does he describe a RAB charge of 45%?

David Willetts: What we have achieved with our higher education reforms is significant savings to the taxpayer and extra income going to our universities. That is the right combination.

Liam Byrne: The whole House will want to join me in congratulating Toni Pearce on her re-election as president of the National Union of Students. Figures this morning from the Sutton Trust and the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that Toni’s generation will now be paying off their student loans into their 50s. Will the Minister get to the Dispatch Box and confess that this student debt system is now not only unsustainable, but unfair? Does the Conservative party have any plans to raise the £9,000 fee in the next Parliament?

David Willetts: Let us be absolutely clear what today’s IFS report shows. It shows that people on lower earnings throughout their working lives are going to pay back less. That is a deliberate feature of our reforms which means that they are fairer and more progressive than the system we inherited from the Labour Government. Meanwhile, people who earn a lot during their working lives as a result of going to university will pay back more. That is what we intended with these reforms, and that is what the IFS shows we are delivering.

Economy (Rebalancing)

Diana Johnson: What progress he has made on rebalancing the economy across the UK.

Vincent Cable: The regional growth fund plays a key rote in stimulating private investment and employment in areas dependent on the public sector. Today, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced 50 further projects and programmes that have been awarded regional growth fund support in round 5. Together they will share £300 million of RGF support and have pledged to deliver £1.9 billion of private sector investment and to safeguard or create 37,000 jobs. We have also increased resources under the strategic direction of local enterprise partnerships to at least £20 billion until 2020-21.

Diana Johnson: In 2011, Hull voters kicked out the Lib Dem councillors who had delayed setting up the Humber LEP. From then on, the Labour council, MPs, local businesses and the LEP took the lead in working together to bring to the city Siemens, City of Culture, and rail electrification. Does not that show the potential of real devolution to the regions? Why does the Secretary of State block the plans that are set out in the Heseltine review?

Vincent Cable: I certainly welcome devolution and the cross-party approach that we have adopted towards attracting Siemens. I remember going to Hull in 2010
	and 2011, when an excellent Liberal Democrat council was laying the foundations for the bid for Siemens that is now happily realised.

Anne McIntosh: May I praise the Government for the role of agri-tech funds in rebalancing the economy in the north? One of the issues holding back growth in the north is badly congested and unsafe roads such as the A64. Will my right hon. Friend use funds from his Department, working with the LEP, to improve the A64?

Vincent Cable: One of the joys of the new pots of funding that are available for local enterprise partnerships is that LEPs can decide for themselves what their priorities are. I am aware, because I grew up in the region, that there are serious infrastructure bottlenecks, and I am sure that that will be high in its priorities.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State and the whole House will no doubt welcome this morning’s excellent news that 1,000 new jobs have been created in Belfast by US software company Concentrix. That is very good news in terms of rebalancing the economy. Will he continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive on matters such as corporation tax to ensure that the number of private sector jobs continues to grow in the Province?

Vincent Cable: The Northern Ireland Executive is doing an excellent job in attracting inward investment. I have been to see some of these high-tech companies. The Titanic quarter is a good example of the growth that is taking place. I am delighted to hear the news that the right hon. Gentleman has announced. We are certainly happy to continue to work with the Executive.

Philip Hollobone: My constituents in Kettering were very worried when told by the Opposition that 1 million jobs would be lost in this country as a result of the Government’s attempt to rebalance the economy. Does the Secretary of State therefore share my delight in the latest figures from HM Treasury showing that since 2010 an extra 4,800 jobs have been created in Kettering—a massive 11% increase?

Vincent Cable: My hon. Friend describes a trend that is apparent across the country. As I said a few moments ago, almost half a million new jobs were created last year, and I am delighted that Kettering is sharing in that positive story.

Jonathan Edwards: Every week when Parliament is sitting, I get on the train in one of the poorest parts of the European Union and get off in the richest, with a twelvefold difference in wealth per head between west Wales and inner London. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the only way to address this record of shame is to fiscally empower the nations and regions of the UK and have a deliberate strategy, as in Germany, to redistribute wealth between the wealthiest and the poorest parts?

Vincent Cable: In many respects, the Welsh economy is sharing in the wider picture. Its unemployment rate is slightly lower than the national average. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who represents
	that area of Welsh Wales, is very active in promoting that part of the country, which benefits substantially from European assistance.

Toby Perkins: The trend across the UK that the Business Secretary has just described is undermined by a report that shows it is 100 times easier to get a job in Cambridge than in Salford and that describes the gap as widening “dramatically”. The Public Accounts Committee exposed the incompetence and delays on the regional growth fund. Does not the Secretary of State know that every Tory Government leads to the imbalance in our economy not shrinking, but growing?

Vincent Cable: Actually, the Greater Manchester local enterprise partnership is one of the best and most active and it is resulting in considerable improvements in that region. On the regional growth fund as a whole, we now have a formidable accumulation of results. We are talking about approaching £3 billion of commitments, 427 projects, more than 500,000 jobs safeguarded and created and, most important, £16 billion of private sector investment that has been brought in alongside Government money.

UK Trade & Investment

Daniel Kawczynski: What recent assessment he has made of the performance of UK Trade & Investment in supporting exports.

Michael Fallon: The most up-to-date independently audited figures show that in the 12 months to September 2013, UKTI supported nearly 35,000 businesses. The value of additional sales attributed to UKTI support over that period was more than £50 billion. UKTI is on track to meet its target to assist 40,000 businesses in 2013-14.

Daniel Kawczynski: In export week, I welcome that news, but what concrete steps are being taken by UKTI to reform its structure, personnel and strategy in order to ensure that we meet the Government’s £1 trillion target for exports?

Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend will be aware, because I know he takes a strong interest in this area, of the reforms to UKTI, which is now working closely with British businesses. This week, I attended the world’s leading trade and industrial technology fair in Hanover and saw UKTI working with the Birmingham chamber of commerce to provide support for 40 UK companies. It is estimated that from that fair alone some £5 million-worth of orders are in the pipeline.

Adrian Bailey: In February, UK exports actually fell. Given the fact that last year only a fifth of the total amount of money available for financing exports was actually used, what more can the Minister do to increase the uptake of UK export finance in order to boost our exports?

Michael Fallon: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There are schemes to assist companies with their export finance, but only large companies have taken advantage of them in the past. We need to do more to
	market those schemes. I do not think it is fair to take one month’s particular trade figures. We are increasing our trade, particularly to the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Derek Twigg: The fact is, though, that exports are at their worst and lowest level since 2010. It is interesting that the chief economist of the British Chambers of Commerce has said:
	“We need to match resources committed by our major competitors if we are to compete on a level-playing field when exporting overseas.”
	What is the Minister doing specifically to ensure a level playing field for the chemical industry?

Michael Fallon: The trade deficit actually narrowed in 2013, so I repeat that I do not think it is right to take just the figures from February. We have specifically been helping the chemical sector recently. The energy package announced in the Budget will make a significant difference in freezing the carbon price floor. We are giving the chemical industry more help by exempting it from the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariffs. The energy taxes are being cut, which will significantly help both the chemical and the steel industry.

Universities

Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to ensure that universities remain financially sustainable in the long term.

David Willetts: Our higher education reforms have increased university income and reduced costs to taxpayers. In 2011, universities received £7.9 billion of income for teaching. Next year, they will receive £9.9 billion. Universities are now well funded, on a sustainable basis for the long term.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister will be surprised to hear that I do not agree with relative complacency. I am a member of the Higher Education Commission and we are taking evidence on the long-term financial viability of our higher education sector. Time and time again, the Higher Education Policy Institute, the vice-chancellors, Lord Baker, Charles Clarke and everyone else who gives evidence to the commission say there is a serious, deep problem. We are not getting any British post-graduates as a result of the £9,000 a year. Something is deeply wrong. Will the Minister act before it is too late?

David Willetts: We now have record numbers of people applying to university. The funding is going to the courses that students choose. We are getting rid of controls on numbers of students. This system is financed by graduates—not students, but graduates—paying money back. That is the right way to finance our higher education. It is the system that all three parties have ended up proposing when they had to confront the realities of financing higher education. It is the right way forward for our young people.

Mark Lazarowicz: Universities in Scotland—in Edinburgh, in particular—contribute substantially to the UK’s research
	community, as most spectacularly exemplified recently by Professor Higgs. At the same time, universities in Scotland receive 15% of UK research funding, as is right and proper given their achievements. Would it not be a tragedy if that support and co-operation were put at risk by Scotland becoming independent from the rest of the UK?

David Willetts: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Although Scotland has about 8% of the nation’s GDP, it gets about 15% of the public research income that is allocated across institutions, because of the excellence of the research in institutions in Scotland. That works to the advantage of Scotland and to the advantage of the entire United Kingdom, and that is why we are better off together.

Small Businesses

Mel Stride: What recent support he has provided to small businesses.

Matthew Hancock: We passionately support small businesses. Just this week, the new employer allowance has cut £2,000 from the national insurance bill of small companies to help them to grow and create jobs. That builds on the more than 15,000 start-up loans, the £1 billion saved by cutting red tape and the 32,000 businesses helped to export this year alone.

Mel Stride: Last Friday, I spent valuable time with some very hard-working high street traders in Chagford, an important town in my constituency. Many of the people there were very worried about the level of business taxation, yet they were unaware of the £2,000 reduction in charges for national insurance contributions and the reduction in rates to which the Minister has just referred. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that companies up and down the country are aware of these important incentives?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is a constant advocate for small businesses locally in Devon. He has raised the issue of business rates and business taxation with me. He will know that the £1,000 off business rates for retailers has been welcomed across the board; it is a small step towards addressing the challenges that business rates pose. This is all part of our long-term plan.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one of the smallest businesses in Britain now is the mining industry? There are three pits left, and 1,300 miners are due to be sacked at two of those pits. That will make it a minuscule small business. Instead of helping those pits to stay open and give them tax breaks, as they do to the oil companies, what have this Government done to that small business? They have just stolen £700 million out of the mineworkers pension fund this February. What a story to tell those miners. Come on—help ’em out!

Matthew Hancock: This morning, we announced a package of support for the mining industry, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to go and look at it before raising any further questions.

Ian Lucas: Is it not interesting that no Conservatives or Liberal Democrats are standing up to ask a question about small business? I saw a small business in Wrexham and spoke to Mr Phil Jackson of Fotofire, who told me that the Jobs Growth Wales scheme has enabled him to employ young people in a rapidly expanding media business. Will the Minister do something positive by looking at a scheme that is providing jobs for more than 9,000 young people in Wales, with 75% employment for those who go on the scheme in the first place?

Matthew Hancock: I am very glad to say that unemployment is falling throughout Wales as part of our long-term economic plan across the country. I am sure that in Wrexham, as elsewhere in the country, small businesses will be celebrating the fact that they are getting £2,000 off their jobs tax, which the Labour party has proposed to put up.

High-growth Markets

Robin Walker: What steps he is taking to promote trade opportunities for UK business in high-growth markets.

Michael Fallon: UK Trade & Investment’s strategy confirms its continued focus on China, India and other high-growth markets, including some in Africa and central America. UKTI has identified more than 60 high-value opportunities in those markets, and with the help of our trade envoys, it promotes those opportunities to business. The £4 million announced by the Chancellor to support mid-sized businesses will enable UKTI to introduce such companies to those opportunities in high-growth markets.

Robin Walker: In export week, will the Minister congratulate Worcester firm Waste Spectrum, which is exactly one of those mid-sized companies that has recently achieved its first sale to China and will be dispatching one of its specially designed incinerators, built in Worcester, to that high-growth market at the end of this month?

Michael Fallon: I congratulate Waste Spectrum and the Worcester ambassadors, and I thank my hon. Friend for his work to promote trade with China. I know he visited China with the trade mission and was involved with an inward delegation from China, and understand that he is planning to visit China again. We need to thank him for his work in promoting links with that particular country.

Seema Malhotra: Yesterday I held a meeting with a range of British businesses on their experience of support for trade in India. They did not have a good story to tell about the signposting and advice of UK Trade & Investment and other agencies. Is the Minister concerned about UKTI’s budget plans and the support that it provides if the experience of British businesses is not positive?

Michael Fallon: I am sorry to hear that. If the hon. Lady lets me have the details, I will certainly ensure that that is followed up with UKTI. We have allocated a bigger budget to UKTI and it has sharpened its focus.
	If there are improvements that we can make to the service that UKTI offers, I would be happy to consider them.

Philip Davies: Does the Minister agree that our future prosperity as a country depends on trading with China, India, south America and emerging economies in Africa—that is where all the future growth in the world economy will be—rather than being part of a backward-looking, inward-facing protection racket called the European Union?

Michael Fallon: I do not wholly agree with my hon. Friend. There are high-growth opportunities the world over, but the single market to which our businesses have access through our membership of the European Union is still an important part of our trading relationships.

Jim Shannon: It may not be a high-growth market, but we had a reception here last week that introduced the fishing, oil and construction opportunities in the Falkland Islands. Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss those matters with the Falkland Islands to develop those areas and give job opportunities to people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Michael Fallon: In my capacity as Minister responsible for oil and gas, I am aware of the opportunities for developing the oil and gas fields off the Falklands. The hon. Gentleman will know that a considerable amount of initial exploration is taking place in the waters just to the north of the Falkland Islands, and of course we stand ready to help the Falkland Islands if that exploration can be turned into significant production.

Women in Business

Rehman Chishti: What recent steps he is taking to support women in business and encourage more women to enter business.

Jennifer Willott: The Government offer a wide range of support to new businesses, for example through the growth accelerator, the new enterprise allowance and mentoring. The latest figures show that over 37% of start-up loans have gone to female entrepreneurs and one in five FTSE 100 board members are now women. We will continue to work closely with the Women’s Business Council and others to help ensure that more women see starting and growing their own business as a real option.

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Minister for that answer. Over the past couple of years, we have seen one of the fastest rates of new business creation. Does she agree that we need to encourage more female entrepreneurs such as Tracy Wilson and Emma Brown in my constituency who have launched their new child product business, Dribble Stop Tops? What support are the Government giving to help to sustain such businesses in the short and long term?

Jennifer Willott: As the hon. Gentleman highlights, record numbers of women are setting up their own businesses. Female self-employment is growing at four
	times the rate of male self-employment. More than 6,000 female mentors are available to support entrepreneurs, such as his constituents, who want to set up and grow their own business. The Government have a wealth of information and advice available on gov.uk and the great business website to support people in the situation that he highlights.

Stella Creasy: The Minister mentioned in passing the latest figures on women in boardrooms. In responding to those figures, the former Minister for Women, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), said that we need to be honest that the culture in Britain is not neutral to women and is still “white, male and heterosexual.” Does the Minister agree? If so, what message does she believe the reshuffle sends about changing the situation?

Jennifer Willott: We would probably all agree that the gender and ethnic balance in boardrooms are not as we would like to see them. However, significant progress is being made. At the start of this Parliament, about 12% of FTSE 100 board members were women. The figure is now more than 20% and we are on target to reach a quarter of board members being women by the election. The Government are taking the matter seriously and working hard to change the culture throughout companies by introducing measures such as flexible working and shared parental leave, which send out the message that the Government think this issue is extremely important. We are working with employers to change the culture in businesses from top to bottom.

Life Sciences

Paul Burstow: What estimate his Department has made of the contribution of life sciences to the UK economy.

David Willetts: The life sciences industry contributes more than £13 billion a year to the UK economy. Since the launch of our life sciences strategy, industry has been investing £1 billion a year in Britain.

Paul Burstow: Sutton is home to the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden. Together, they have a formidable global reputation in the fight against cancer. As part of its Opportunity Sutton programme, my council has a shared plan with those two organisations to develop a life science cluster. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of those organisations to discuss how the Department can facilitate the co-ordination of policy across Government to secure that vision and the 4,000 extra jobs that will come with it?

David Willetts: I would be happy to meet my right hon. Friend. That is exactly the kind of initiative that the Mayor of London envisaged when he launched his MedCity initiative earlier this week. We look forward to a golden triangle that links Oxford, Cambridge and Sutton.

Exports (SMEs)

Julian Smith: What steps he is taking to help small and medium-sized businesses to export.

Tony Baldry: What steps he is taking to help small and medium-sized businesses to export.

Matthew Hancock: Last year, we supported more than £4 billion of export finance, which is more than in any other year for a decade. This week, we announced additional funding to enable UKTI to support 3,000 more medium-sized businesses.

Julian Smith: Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), will the Minister agree that the best way to exploit emerging markets is often through EU free trade agreements? In the light of that, will he support the all-party parliamentary group on European Union-United States trade and investment to ensure that small and micro businesses are front and centre in the proposed free trade agreement with America?

Matthew Hancock: I am a strong supporter of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. The trade deal between the EU and Canada is a big step forward and provides a basis on which we can build TTIP. The involvement of small businesses in TTIP will provide them with extremely valuable support in creating jobs.

Tony Baldry: We have some excellent exporters in north Oxfordshire, such as Norbar Torque, E. P. Barrus, Crompton Technology and Prodrive to name but a few. Those companies generate jobs themselves and through the contracts that they give to local SMEs. What is my hon. Friend doing to support SMEs in the export supply chain?

Matthew Hancock: Across the Department, we work to support supply chains. Specifically, UKTI’s high value opportunities programme targets 100 projects that are based globally. That programme supports not just the primes, but their supply chains in Oxfordshire and across the country.

Barry Gardiner: One area of export growth has been in recyclate of glass and plastics. Unfortunately, that has had a perverse effect because the packaging recovery note system, which is supposed to direct money into the creation of infrastructure for our own recycling industry, has been denied the feedstock that the industry needs if it is to grow. Will the Minister look at what more he can do to expand our recycling industry, rather than export it?

Matthew Hancock: I would be delighted to speak to the hon. Gentleman to understand more about the packaging recycling industry and to see whether we can tackle that problem.

Russell Brown: If we are to grow the economy and increase exports, we need to ensure that there is support for SMEs. In the last quarter, net lending to small and medium-sized enterprises fell by more then £1 billion. When will Ministers get a grip and start backing our wealth creators to take on employees and develop greater opportunities for exports?

Matthew Hancock: Of course, the economy is growing, jobs are being created and the amount of gross lending is rising, but we are recovering from an extremely difficult situation. We all know what the causes of that were, and many of them came from those on the Labour Front Bench. Turning around our economy to support small businesses, whether through access to finance, support for exports, which are going up, or otherwise, is the Government’s central task. It is a huge job, because we were left in a huge hole.

David Heath: It is absolutely essential that we encourage more small and medium-sized businesses to export, but does the Minister agree that the term “SMEs” is often unhelpful? There is a huge difference between the needs of medium-sized and small businesses, and between the range of small businesses, from the largest to single proprietor? Will he recognise those differences and tailor accordingly?

Matthew Hancock: I strongly support my hon. Friend. In fact, as part of our long-term economic plan I am trying to banish the term “SMEs” and instead use “small businesses”. A business with, say, 10 employees is very different from a business with 249 employees, so an end to the acronym “SME” would be a valuable step forward.

Royal Mail

Karl Turner: What assessment he has made of the value for money for the public purse of the recent sale of shares in Royal Mail.

Jessica Morden: What assessment he has made of the value for money for the public purse of the recent sale of shares in Royal Mail.

Michael Fallon: The National Audit Office’s report on the Royal Mail share sale published last week confirms that we achieved our key objective of achieving the sale and allowing Royal Mail access to the private capital it needs to invest and thrive. It was a successful transaction, raising £2 billion for the Exchequer, and has reduced the risks to the taxpayer of having to provide future financial support to the universal six-day-a-week service.

Karl Turner: The Secretary of State recently described me as “tribal” for my opposition to the fire sale of the Royal Mail. What does the Minister say about Peter Davies of Lansdowne Partners, the Chancellor’s best man and best pal, who is set to rake in millions from this dodgy deal? Will he say how many of the 12 lucky immediate winners are Tory party donors?

Michael Fallon: More than half the shares allocated to priority investors are still held by those investors, and six of them remain among Royal Mail’s largest shareholders.

Jessica Morden: Most people listening to the Minister’s response will think that it was particularly lame, to put it mildly. Can he justify the fact that consumers and businesses have faced hikes of up to 30% in stamp
	prices, while hundreds of millions of pounds have been squandered because of the Secretary of State’s disastrous decision at a time when families are really struggling?

Michael Fallon: Nobody has lost anything. Britain has gained a top-100 company in which 10% of the shares are owned by the staff themselves. Nearly three quarters of a million individual investors also have shares in Royal Mail. We achieved our objective of realising nearly £2 billion of receipts for the Exchequer, ensuring that Royal Mail has been put on a sound commercial footing.

Ian Murray: The Minister can spin this as much as he likes, but he shamefully lost the taxpayer £750 million from the sale of Royal Mail. At that time, the Business Secretary dismissed the loss, saying:
	“We wanted to make sure that the company started its new life with a core of high-quality investors who would be there in good times and bad”.
	Given that the core long-term investors that the Business Secretary championed have used the good times to sell the majority of their shares at huge profit, is it not right that the Government tell us who those priority investors are, so that the taxpayers know where their lost millions went?

Michael Fallon: Nobody has lost anything from the sale of Royal Mail. More than half the shares allocated to priority investors remain with those investors, and the share price has fluctuated wildly. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has been in touch with his broker recently, otherwise he would know that the share price closed last night at 17% down on its post-float peak.

Business (Young People)

Adam Afriyie: What recent steps he has taken to encourage young people to get involved in business.

Matthew Hancock: Building links between the worlds of education and employment is a vital part of our reforms. I can announce to the House today that we are publishing the revised statutory guidance for schools on careers guidance and inspiration. This will drive links between schools and colleges and employers to inspire and mentor pupils, and there will be no excuse for schools and colleges not to open their doors to employers and no excuse for employers not to engage with schools and colleges. I will place a copy of the guidance in the Library.

Adam Afriyie: I thank the Minister for that response and very much welcome the Government’s commitment to increasing access and exposure to, and experience of, business in schools, because it is through business and enterprise that people access social mobility, jobs and opportunity. Does he agree that we need constantly to seek better ways of connecting businesses with schools and ensuring that proper careers advice is provided by people with experience of business, rather than merely from teachers?

Matthew Hancock: Exactly. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does in bringing together employers and schools and colleges so that young people know
	what it takes to succeed in work. The strengthened statutory guidance that we are publishing today will help to drive that, alongside league tables that include not just exam results, as before, but pupils’ destinations.

Productivity

Neil Carmichael: What steps he is taking to improve productivity.

Vincent Cable: The Government’s approach to raising productivity is to deliver macro-economic stability through a combination of monetary activism and fiscal restraint, while implementing a programme of long-term structural change through the industrial strategy. This is giving firms and individuals the confidence they need to invest.

Neil Carmichael: In my constituency, we have several modern and forward-thinking firms, such as Renishaw, Delphi and ABB, which are all keen to make sure that they can recruit skilled engineers and a skilled work force—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State has sat down now. Does he agree that the long-term economic plan is pivotal because it deals with the need to make sure there is a pipeline of well educated young people entering the labour market?

Vincent Cable: I apologise for remaining standing; I was so gripped by the question, I could not tear myself away.
	I commend my hon. Friend on establishing what I think he calls the Carmichael commission in his constituency to look at ways to improve growth. He is right that having a pipeline of skilled staff is essential. I am familiar with Renishaw and I shall see the company tomorrow at the MACH exhibition in Birmingham. The crucial requirement is a long-term train of apprenticeship, at graduate and sub-graduate levels.

Kevin Brennan: Is the Secretary of State at all worried that the current economic picture is being driven so much by consumer spending, and why does our productivity remain so poor?

Vincent Cable: The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast for 2014 is that business investment will rise by 8%. Given the depth of the crisis to which we have had to respond, this is a slow process, but business investment is now overtaking consumer spending as the driver of the recovery.

Energy-intensive Industries

David Mowat: What steps he is taking to support energy-intensive industries.

Vincent Cable: The Government have in place several measures to address energy costs for these industries. The Budget announced a further £7 billion package of support including: extending the existing compensation scheme to 2020, under which we have distributed £30 million to 53 companies; new compensation for costs of the renewable obligation and feed-in tariff; qualified exemptions
	to the carbon price support mechanism for combined heat and power; and capping the CPS at £18 per tonne of carbon.

David Mowat: The Secretary of State will be aware that even after the welcome changes in the Budget, the carbon price floor in the UK is four to five times higher than in the rest of the EU, where the emission trading scheme is more or less defunct. In addition, the EU has a system of more direct subsidy in countries such as Germany for these industries. Can he assure the House that he will be active in ensuring that our industries are supported in the same way as those in the EU are, and that the 900,000 jobs in energy-intensive industries are protected?

Vincent Cable: Indeed, it is a major industry. My figures suggest that we have some 600,000 jobs directly or indirectly affected. It is a massive industry. We believe in it, and it is important that it is able to compete on a level playing field. That was the purpose of the changes announced in the Budget and we are now actively pursuing state aid clearance to make sure that these compensation mechanisms go through.

Nicholas Dakin: Does the Secretary of State now recognise that the Government’s ill-thought-through carbon floor tax was a mistake?

Vincent Cable: Absolutely not. The only concern from the industrial point of view is that energy-intensive industries should have those costs offset. Under the mechanism the Chancellor has proposed, which we are now pursuing through the European Commission, they will be offset.

Topical Questions

Paul Maynard: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Vincent Cable: My Department’s objectives are to pursue economic growth and recovery by investing in skills and innovation.

Paul Maynard: As we have just heard, the carbon floor price in the UK remains significantly higher in the EU, despite the welcome changes in the Budget. What specific assessment has the Secretary of State made of the investment decisions taken by international energy-intensive companies, such as those that operate in my constituency?

Vincent Cable: I think I largely answered that question a few moments ago, but the point I would emphasise is that despite the disadvantage of costs, albeit with the compensation we are now proposing, we have had very substantial investment in our energy-intensive industries. The steel industry, in particular, has been an exemplary example of long-term investment by Tata.

Chuka Umunna: In export week, will the Secretary of State tell us what he is doing to garner support among Cabinet colleagues for our
	seventh-largest export industry, a sector that generates more than £10 billion of income for our country?

Vincent Cable: My colleague, the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) has given a comprehensive answer on how we are promoting exports across the board. The industrial strategy is, of course, maximising our export potential.

Chuka Umunna: I am talking about higher education. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government’s net migration target has done immense damage to higher education, contributing to a 51% fall in postgraduates coming from India and a 49% fall in those coming from Pakistan. Jim O’Neil, on the Department for Education’s board, agrees, saying that the Government are sending out a message that they are “not serious” about exporting education. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) at No. 10 has argued, as we do, that legitimate students should be taken out of Government net migration targets, but is it not the truth that for all the talk from that Minister and the Business Secretary, both have let the sector down by failing to get their intransigent Home Secretary to see sense?

Vincent Cable: The simple truth of the matter is that, as a result of discussions across the Cabinet and with the Minister for Universities and Science and myself, there is no cap on the number of overseas students. [Hon. Members: “There is.”]There is not. We want to maximise the number. We actively encourage them, and only this week there was a £1 billion contract signed with Saudi Arabia for higher education training in which we are a participant.

Neil Carmichael: With the excellent news that manufacturing output year-on-year has increased by 3.8%, and with export week in mind, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to improve productivity so that we can further enhance the innovation of cutting-edge products and penetrate new export markets?

Vincent Cable: That is a suitable rejoinder to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question. The key point he made in his earlier question is that to drive productivity we need an adequate supply of trained people. I would add to that the emphasis we are placing on innovation and the establishment of the Catapult centres across the country. This is a new approach based largely on the German model and it is succeeding admirably.

Mary Glindon: I am concerned that the Secretary of State has been told that the current redevelopment of Swan Hunter’s yard in Wallsend is not appropriate. Will he meet me, the elected mayor of North Tyneside and others from North Tyneside to learn exactly how external funding is being used to develop the site and how his Department could support the creation of thousands of jobs in advanced manufacturing at Swan’s?

Vincent Cable: I am certainly very happy to give the hon. Lady an assurance to meet her in the House and to visit her constituency. I have been to Tyneside on several
	occasions and I am aware that it is a centre for advanced manufacturing. In many respects it is doing very well on the back of the growth of the oil and gas industry in the North sea. We clearly need more jobs on Tyneside and I am happy to work with her to deliver them.

Greg Mulholland: Twenty-five years ago the then Government intervened in the pubs market, recognising that it was failing consumers and small brewers. However, as a result of industry lobbying, they failed to place a limit on the number of pubs, which led to the development of the large pubcos. Twenty-five years on, will the Secretary of State assure me that he will listen to the majority of MPs in the House of Commons rather than giving in to industry lobbying, and that he will introduce the market-rent-only option which is the solution offered by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee?

Jennifer Willott: As my hon. Friend knows, we have had a number of debates about this issue in the House, and the House has expressed its view. The Government recently held a consultation, to which thousands of responses were received. We are now considering those responses, and will issue our own response as soon as we can.

Tom Greatrex: Last week, the Prime Minister said on the BBC that he would do everything he could to keep the pits at Kellingley and Thoresby open. This morning, the Minister of State issued a written statement confirming that the Government were facilitating a “managed closure”. Given that people will begin to lose their jobs on 23 May, there is now a very short period in which it is realistically possible to secure alternative investment to keep the pits open. Towards the end of last week, a private operator suggested that it might be interested. Has the Minister of State, or his officials, had any discussions with it about whether it is possible to find a way of securing a commercial future for those pits and those communities?

Michael Fallon: In my ministerial statement, copies of which are available in the Vote Office and the Library, I confirmed that we were prepared in principle to contribute a £10 million loan—alongside contributions from other private sector investors—to support a managed closure of the two collieries, which would avoid the significant losses and liabilities that would have materialised in the event of the immediate and uncontrolled insolvency of UK Coal. That does not exclude any further private sector interest, and I have been meeting others who have expressed an interest, as has UK Coal.

Philip Davies: Given that sales increased by 2.8% in London and by 6.2% outside London during the Olympic games as a result of the relaxation of the Sunday trading laws, will the Minister consider a further relaxation—perhaps during the World cup, the Commonwealth games and the run-up to Christmas—or, better still, abolish the restrictions altogether, in order to help bricks-and-mortar retailers to compete with those that trade online?

Matthew Hancock: We now live in a world in which an increasing amount of trade is carried out online at times that are convenient to consumers and others. We relaxed the rules during the Olympics, and said at the time that we would assess the impact of that relaxation. A debate about the issue is undoubtedly taking place.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The latest report from the Higher Education Funding Council for England shows for the first time in 29 years a decline in the number of overseas students studying in the United Kingdom. Let me now give the Secretary of State another opportunity to admit that the inclusion of students in the net migration target is hindering the growth and international competitiveness of our British universities.

David Willetts: There is no cap on the number of legitimate overseas students coming to Britain, and we will not introduce any such cap. The Secretary of State and I work with the Prime Minister and others on trade missions around the world to encourage young people with the necessary aptitude and qualifications to benefit from study in Britain to apply to come here. We can be proud of our universities.

Henry Smith: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Elekta Oncology Systems, a leading manufacturer and exporter of oncology systems which is based in my constituency, on its plan to expand by about a fifth in Crawley, and also on its involvement in the Government’s regional growth fund?

David Willetts: I do congratulate that company. As part of our life sciences strategy, we are supporting high-tech medical companies large and small, and it is great to hear that they are prospering.

John Robertson: The Secretary of State said earlier that investment in businesses would go ahead next year, but today we have heard about the closure of coal mines. Will the Minister explain why, according to figures from Bloomberg New Energy, investment in clean energy in the United Kingdom is due to hit a five-year low this year? What is happening to that investment?

Michael Fallon: There has been a wave of investment in energy, not least the commitment last week by Siemens to invest £300 million in two plants on the Humber that will create 1,000 new jobs. We have seen a series of projects come forward for assistance under our renewables regime, and we will be running a capacity market later this year to secure more energy investment in four years’ time.

Duncan Hames: The Budget invited universities and others to bid to develop the new Alan Turing institute for big data, an invitation enthusiastically embraced in Wiltshire and Swindon’s economic plan. How can we now work with the Minister to make this bright idea a reality?

David Willetts: My hon. Friend indeed represents an area with, shall we say, some very distinctive skills in cyber and big data, and yes, absolutely, it is very important
	that places like his have the opportunity to apply to have the Turing centre. We will be running a consultation on its best location.

Julie Hilling: In answer to a written question I was told that the Government know next to nothing about the number of jobs they claim to have created, not even how many of them are new jobs rather than simply a transfer from the public sector, so why will the Secretary of State not tell us how many of these jobs are minimum wage, unpaid or zero-hours?

Vincent Cable: We are perfectly happy to provide information where it is available. It is obviously easy to quantify jobs created in projects. Collecting a vast inventory of information on fluctuating wages is a much more difficult proposition.

Philip Hollobone: May I commend to the Secretary of State “A Blueprint for Britain: openness not isolation” by Iain Mansfield who is a former employee of his Department? It was the winner of the prestigious Brexit prize by the Institute of Economic Affairs, and it concludes that
	“if the right measures are taken the UK can be confident of a healthy long-term economic outlook outside the EU.”

Vincent Cable: To correct the hon. Gentleman slightly, I think the gentleman concerned is employed by UK Trade & Investment, and he wrote this in his personal capacity, and it is perfectly reasonable to do so. I look forward to responding to his essay, which seems to me fundamentally mistaken, but no doubt we will argue about that.

Jenny Chapman: When I visit schools in my constituency I ask them about the careers information, advice and guidance they receive and, without exception, they say that it is totally dreadful. To be fair to the Government, it was not much better under the previous Government. This is very important for social mobility, so what is the Minister intending to do to make face-to-face guidance available to everybody?

Matthew Hancock: That is a very fair question. It is true that careers guidance has not been good enough in Britain for an awfully long time under Governments of all stripes and the new publication today, which I am sure the hon. Lady will want to get a copy of and I am happy to send to her, will strengthen the statutory duty on schools and also, crucially, open schools and colleges up to employers and encourage, and make it easier for, employers to get involved in schools, to inspire and mentor and give guidance to young people.

Rehman Chishti: Farmers are the backbone of the £97-billion agriculture
	and food sector. How are the Government helping them take advantage of the latest science and innovation supporting our world-class agricultural technology sector?

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the significance of this sector, and that is why we have a £160-million agri-tech strategy, which is aimed at promoting exports and investment in high-tech agriculture for the future.

Karl Turner: The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), refused to answer me, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State could estimate how many of the 12 immediate beneficiaries of the fire sale of the Royal Mail are Tory party donors?

Vincent Cable: It is not my job to collect information on the Conservative party’s funding. All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is what the Minister of State has already told him: that a majority of the shares allocated to priority investors are still held by them and a substantial majority of the shares in Royal Mail that were issued through the initial public offering are being held by long-term institutional investors.

Julian Smith: The start-up loan scheme is one of the most inspirational business policies that this Government are pursuing. Can the small business Minister confirm that we are right behind it, we are putting more money into it and we will do everything we can to grow the scheme as much as possible?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I will. Only this week, we took through the statutory instrument to expand the start-up loans scheme and ensure that the funding is available. Fifteen thousand people have now had the benefit of using the scheme, but it is not just about the money; it is about the mentoring and the wider support that come with a start-up loan, and I commend everyone to have a look at the scheme and commend it to their constituents.

Diana Johnson: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that, following the closure of the Insolvency Service office in Hull, there will be a gap between Newcastle and Ipswich with no Insolvency Service offices between those two areas? Will he agree to meet me to discuss this matter?

Jennifer Willott: I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this issue. The Insolvency Service is having to look at the way in which it manages its estate. The number of insolvencies has been dropping significantly year on year, and it has to make the best use of its resources.

Asylum Seekers (Support)

Sarah Teather: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on support provided to meet the essential living needs of asylum seekers under sections 95 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

James Brokenshire: Asylum seekers are supported by the Home Office if they are destitute. The support package usually consists of accommodation, with gas, electricity, water and other utilities provided free, plus a weekly cash allowance to cover essential living needs. The cash allowance is currently £36.62 a week for a single adult, but it is higher in cases where there are children in the household. A family of two adults and two children would receive approximately £180 a week.
	The Government completed a full review of payment levels in June 2013. The review concluded that the levels were sufficient to meet essential living needs. That decision was challenged in the courts by Refugee Action, a group that campaigns for asylum seekers, and the court issued its judgment yesterday. It decided that there were some errors in the way in which the 2013 review had been conducted. It found, for example, that items such as household cleaning products and non-prescription medicines should have been considered as essential and therefore factored into the overall assessment of the adequacy of the payment levels. The court did not decide that the current payment levels were too low. That question will be considered by the Government in a fresh review of the payment levels. We are of course considering the full implications of the judgment, and whether or not to appeal.

Sarah Teather: The Minister is correct to say that yesterday’s judgment did not comment on the generosity of the levels, but it was absolutely damning about the process that the Home Secretary had used in order to come to her decision. It found that she had misunderstood or misapplied information, that she did not know, or ignored, basic aspects of her Government’s education policy, and that she had failed to gather sufficient information. She has been told to go away and do the whole thing again.
	Is not the problem that this decision is a personal fiefdom of the Home Secretary, driven entirely by base political motives? She can and does ignore detailed representations by other Ministers across the Government. She can and does ignore parliamentarians, including the findings of a cross-party inquiry that I chaired last year. She can and does ignore the pleas of those who work with victims of torture, who say that she is exacerbating their trauma and forcing them into severe poverty. It is an indictment of the current process that Refugee Action and the Migrants Law Project had to take the Home Secretary to court to get any kind of oversight of the process.
	Is it not simply time for Ministers to accept that the Home Office cannot be trusted to make a rational or humane decision alone on this matter, and to submit to a transparent process with cross-government oversight, which might improve its data and force the Home
	Secretary to come to Parliament to announce them? Finally, does the Minister accept that half this agony would be avoided if the Government allowed asylum seekers to work and pay their own way, as many of the highly skilled individuals who come here seeking sanctuary are desperate to do?

James Brokenshire: The UK has a proud history of granting asylum to those who need it, and the Government are committed to providing support to those who would otherwise be destitute while their claims are being considered. The payment levels to asylum seekers need to be considered as part of the overall support package. Accommodation—plus utilities such as gas and electricity —is provided free.
	I do not accept my hon. Friend’s characterisation of the assessment process. A detailed assessment was concluded last June and, indeed, we will carry out a further assessment of levels this year to take into account relevant factors and to assess whether there should be any change. I can certainly assure her that we will consider these matters very carefully.
	My hon. Friend makes various comments on the judgment itself. It is a very detailed judgment—it runs to about 90 pages and the Home Office is analysing the detail carefully and, indeed, whether we will be appealing it.
	The Home Office takes its responsibilities in respect of asylum support extremely seriously in setting the rates and considering what is appropriate. We believe that it does provide support to enable those who seek asylum and who are destitute to see that their claims are decided, and that support is given to them during that process.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) for raising the issue, which, as she mentioned, is about the basic level of support given to those fleeing torture, rape or oppression and who seek asylum in the United Kingdom.
	Given that the rate was frozen in 2011 and has now been frozen through to 2013-14, yesterday’s judgment was damning. The Home Secretary was ordered to review the amount of money given to support asylum seekers after the High Court ruled that she had used insufficient evidence in deciding to freeze those payments. In his judgment the judge said the decision was “flawed” and that the Home Secretary
	“misunderstood or misapplied information which she treated as important in reaching her decision.”
	He added:
	“In my judgment the information used by the Secretary of State to set the rate of asylum support was simply insufficient to reach a rational decision to freeze rates.”
	In the judge’s view, the rates involved
	“a reduction in real terms from what was regarded in 2007 as the base minimum level necessary to avoid destitution.”
	Remember, Mr Speaker, that these are individuals who cannot work. In the light of that, will the Minister—he has hinted at this—indicate whether he intends to appeal that decision? If he does intend to, will he tell the House how much has been spent to date on legal costs in defending the decision to freeze the rates and how much he expects to spend on any appeal? Will he estimate the
	number of individuals who are involved? The judge yesterday mentioned some 23,000, but I should welcome confirmation. I should welcome confirmation also on how many of those 23,000—if that is the figure—have children who now face destitution because of the freeze.
	If the appeal is made and is not successful, will any new rates be applied from today, or from 2011? What estimate has the Minister made of the impact of any unsuccessful appeal on the level of rates?
	Does the Minister agree with what the hon. Member for Brent Central asked for, which is what Refugee Action and, indeed, the Refugee Council, which I spoke to this morning, have asked for, namely a wider examination of the review of and support for asylum seekers—not failed asylum seekers, but asylum seekers fleeing torture, oppression, fear or intimidation, and who cannot, I remind the House, work?
	What assessment has the Minister made of those currently in receipt of assistance who now face this freeze? Has he made any assessment, in particular, of the impact on children? Will he ensure that he urgently reviews recommendation 82 of the Home Affairs Committee’s unanimous report of 11 October last year, which asked for a review of section 4 support? How many asylum seekers does the Home Secretary’s Department believe cannot now buy enough food to feed themselves, as referred to in that report? How many asylum seekers does her Department believe missed a meal because they could not afford to eat? How many asylum seekers does her Department believe do not have money to buy clothes?

Therese Coffey: Is this a speech?

David Hanson: Before the hon. Lady says any more, I have a right to ask those questions of the Minister.
	The Home Secretary’s decision making has proved to be flawed. Will the Minister now address that issue, or will there be a return to what a Minister—a Minister in her Government—described as the Conservative party being the nasty party on these issues?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I just say for the record that the right hon. Gentleman certainly has the right to ask those questions, and I would not for one moment seek to stop him, but we all have to operate to time limits. I say in the most charitable possible way to him that his intervention was longer both than that of the hon. Lady who put the urgent question and of the Minister, so there does need to be some trimming on these occasions. Two minutes is allowed, not four.

James Brokenshire: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not think the value of cash and non-cash support is ungenerous when taken as a whole. He talks about the position of children and families. A family of four on section 95 support would receive £178.44 per week to spend on essential needs, with their accommodation, utility bills, council tax, household equipment, health care and schooling provided. In that context, we believe the support given is appropriate.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of detailed questions. On the support provided under section 95, accommodation is provided to 22,372 people and the cash-only payments are provided to about 2,688 people. He sought to press me on whether we would seek to appeal this judgment. The judgment was handed down yesterday, it is lengthy and detailed, and it is right that the Home Office should reflect carefully on it to determine whether or not an appeal is appropriate.
	The judgment does not seek to challenge the current levels of support provided; it simply seeks to comment on the detail of the review undertaken last year. I maintain that that review was properly assessed and took into consideration relevant details and matters for an assessment of the level of support. It concluded that the support should be frozen at its current level. The right hon. Gentleman gave a churlish characterisation of the steps that the Government take in their support on asylum. We work to uphold this country’s proud tradition in ensuring that those fleeing persecution can receive support and humanitarian assistance in this country. That is long standing, and we should welcome and cherish it. His comments were entirely ill-judged.

Julian Huppert: The level is clearly too low—it is about half that of income support—and of course we are talking about people the Minister will not allow to work for themselves. Is not the big problem simply that the Government are too slow to make decisions? Some 36% of asylum seekers wait more than six months for an initial decision—surely that should be speeded up, which would save the Government a lot of money in supporting them.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on the process on asylum claims. It is important to recognise that there has been a growth in the number of people seeking asylum in this country—the increase has been about 8%, although that is not as big as has been seen in some other European countries because of continuing crises in various parts of the world. Some decisions do take too long, but the Government are addressing the problem: most decisions are dealt with quickly. In 2012-13, 78% of decisions were made within six months. I agree that decisions should be taken more quickly. Our visa and immigration command is looking at this work carefully and is putting more caseworkers in place to support that activity, which is important.
	My hon. Friend makes a connection in respect of the rate of support and Department for Work and Pensions levels, but asylum support is provided for different purposes. It is provided to meet essential living needs only and is temporary in nature. I highlight the fact that there are other services—accommodation and utilities—that are provided free which other benefits would seek to take into account.

Jeremy Corbyn: This ought to trigger a review by the Home Office of its asylum policy, given the points raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others about the very slow response to initial applications and in dealing with those who wish to appeal against an initial refusal—many of these appeals are granted. Will the Minister look at the misery, destitution and waste of human resources
	that comes from keeping asylum seekers in desperate poverty, and not allowing them to work and contribute to our society and economy?

James Brokenshire: I agree that it is important to take decisions as speedily as possible to ensure that those who are entitled to the full humanitarian protection of this country receive that support and can continue with their lives, and that those who are not entitled can then be removed from this country so that the system is seen to be upheld.
	We judge that the levels of support are appropriate, but we keep them under review. We will be reviewing the level of current support in the coming months, as I have committed to do in this House.

Julian Lewis: Given that one of the most basic needs of any asylum seeker is to have a roof over his or her head, will the Minister explain a little bit more about emergency accommodation, or is it the case that asylum seekers are among those to be found sleeping rough?

James Brokenshire: The support that is provided to those seeking asylum includes accommodation. There are provisions relating to temporary support as well as to the section 95 support that has been referenced in this urgent question. The Government have put in place a new contract arrangement, the COMPASS contract, to provide those services. Obviously, we believe that that is now delivering more effective service and more effective value for money. Clearly, we keep such matters under review.

Barry Gardiner: The Minister identified that a family of four would be in receipt of £178 a week, which equates to about £44.50 per person. Does he understand that many children who attend schools—certainly in my constituency in Brent North—will undertake one and often two bus journeys each day to get to their school? Many of them will have medical problems from the country from which they have fled, which means that they have to attend hospitals, and have travel costs associated with that. Has he taken that into account when considering that each day, for five days a week, they may be paying £10 of the £44.50 that they have for food simply on transport?

James Brokenshire: Obviously, we understand the differing needs of families as opposed to individuals, which is why the rates are set at different levels depending on individual family circumstances. The need for additional support is recognised and provided for in respect of children, and the rates are adjusted to take their needs into account. None the less, we keep such matters under review. I can confirm again that we will be reviewing the levels of support provided in the months ahead, and we will be reflecting on a range of factors in conducting that review.

Bob Blackman: When I was elected four years ago, I inherited a huge case load of immigration cases. To my horror, we had asylum cases that went back more than 10 years. These people who are not allowed to work in this country were on the point of destitution. Does my hon. Friend agree that good progress has been made in resolving those cases,
	but the most important thing is to ensure that cases are resolved quickly so that people know whether to stay or go?

James Brokenshire: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of ensuring that proper decisions are taken at the earliest practical opportunity. It is the uncertainty he highlighted that causes some of the challenges that we have to face if people reside in this country for long periods. That is why UK Visas and Immigration is putting additional caseworkers into the asylum area to see whether decisions can be taken more swiftly, and to bring matters up to service standard by March next year to deal with these cases. That is to ensure that there is roughly only two months’ intake outstanding. It is right that we continue to focus on this matter.

Mark Lazarowicz: If the level of support was right in 2011, it is hard to believe that, given the increase in basic living standard costs over the past three years, it is still right in 2014. Would it not be sensible to agree an interim increase at this stage, pending the review that, as the Minister said, will take at least some months?

James Brokenshire: As I have indicated, the court judgment does not state that the current levels are incorrect. It is important that we reflect carefully on all current matters in conducting the review that we will undertake in the next few months. I certainly would not want to prejudge the outcome of that or our decision about whether we appeal the court judgment.

Robert Halfon: Despite what has been said by Opposition Members, does my hon. Friend not agree that the recently launched scheme to help refugees fleeing Syria and the atrocities there underlines our country’s proud record of helping asylum seekers and those in need?

James Brokenshire: We have accepted a significant number of people who have fled persecution in Syria. As at September last year, the number of asylum claims that had been received in the year was about 1,100. We also have the vulnerable person relocation scheme, which underlines our humanitarian support for those fleeing an appalling conflict in which people have been displaced across the region. The UK can be proud of the contribution that we are making.

Ian Lucas: If the Home Office is truly committed to the welfare of asylum seekers, why have the Government this very month withdrawn face-to-face advice for asylum seekers in Wrexham, a dispersal centre, through the awarding of the contract to Migrant Help? What kind of message does that send to these vulnerable people?

James Brokenshire: Yes, we have changed the arrangements for support and guidance, but we continue to maintain that that provides appropriate support and help. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman might take a different view of the services given, but, on Migrant Help, I believe that our relationship with the voluntary sector continues to be important. We want to continue to work with the voluntary sector, and the new service
	model, which is being introduced from 1 April, is aimed at testing the marketplace and gaining value for money. UK Visas and Immigration will closely monitor development to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements and we are committed to ensuring that asylum seekers have access to quality advice and support.

Angela Watkinson: My hon. Friend has just referred to refugees and asylum seekers from Syria and he will know that neighbouring countries have reached absorption point when it comes to the numbers they can help, so this is now a problem for the whole of Europe and this country. What impact is that increased demand having on the level of funding for asylum support?

James Brokenshire: We have seen an increase in the number of people seeking asylum from different parts of the globe. Syria is one of those and my hon. Friend is right to highlight the dire humanitarian situation there. The UK can be proud of the £600 million that has been invested to provide direct support for those in need in the region. We are continuing to see increased intake levels, which will, I am sure, feed through in terms of additional support that might be required.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister is right: we have a proud tradition in our country, a tradition that is often kept alive by the third sector—by the charities and by the Churches, the Quakers in particular. It is not just a question of value for money. Can we have a change of attitude today so that we see those groups as partners and incentivise them, work with them and value them?

James Brokenshire: As I have said, we see an important and valuable role for the voluntary and non-governmental sector. Indeed, many fantastic organisations provide support services to migrants and asylum seekers, which I want to encourage and to see supported. It is important that the system delivers effective services and, ultimately, value for money.

Andrew Turner: Very few direct links exist between asylum sources and this country, yet we seem to be a temporary home for many asylum seekers from all over the world. Why is that?

James Brokenshire: In 2013, the number of asylum applications in the EU was the highest since 2002. The UK has experienced a rise, but countries such as Germany and France saw increases of 164% and 37% respectively between 2010 and 2013. We are committed to resolving cases more quickly, and we provide direct assistance to regions in crisis, such as Syria, so that people do not need to travel to the UK or elsewhere to seek that assistance.

Andrew McDonald: Will the Minister not acknowledge that to replace services provided in my area by the North East Refugee Service with a simple telephone call is detrimental to the cohesion of services that work together in that locality?

James Brokenshire: Again, I hear the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but we believe that the new support arrangements are appropriate and provide assistance to those who require that direct help. We keep this matter under review, and UK Visas and Immigration will continue to monitor developments.

Philip Hollobone: We should, of course, provide support to genuine asylum seekers in genuine need, but most of my constituents take the view that there are too many asylum seekers in this country. It takes too long to process their claims and deport them when they are not genuine, and no one should be granted asylum if they have travelled through another safe country to get to this country. What happened to the Dublin convention whereby we returned asylum seekers to the last safe country that they left?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the Dublin convention, and the fact that those in need of humanitarian protection should seek assistance in the first country that they arrive at. That is something that we make clear in our discussions at EU level. He is also right about ensuring that decisions are made quickly, which is why we have made changes to the old architecture of the UK Border Agency that existed under the last Government and introduced visas and immigration to make decisions more quickly and the immigration enforcement command to see that people are returned.

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend will be proud of the UK’s record in providing a safe haven for those genuinely fleeing persecution. I am sure that we do not want to see people destitute, but what representations has he received from the Opposition or the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) on what increases to the rate they would wish to introduce?

James Brokenshire: I have received no representations to date that I am aware of, but I will check when I get back to the Home Office to see whether there is anything to which I can alert the House. Clearly, we are reflecting carefully on the court judgment and will determine what next steps may be appropriate.

Rehman Chishti: Providing support to refugees in the region is nothing new. It was put forward by the previous Government, by the then Minister, Clare Short, in relation to the Kosovo crisis. Does my hon. Friend agree that, on that basis, what we are doing is in line with what has been done before?

James Brokenshire: This country has a proud tradition of providing humanitarian assistance in regions that are in need, and I have highlighted the support that has been given as part of the Syrian crisis. All Governments have a proud record on consistently upholding our asylum system and ensuring that protection is provided to those fleeing persecution who come to this country, and that those who are destitute are given appropriate assistance, which is what this Government are doing and will maintain.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is right not to be bounced into an early decision on yesterday’s complicated judgment, because
	we need to get the right balance between fulfilling our humanitarian responsibilities and ensuring that the system is not open to abuse. What representations has he had from respected children’s charities about their assessment of the impact these measures may be having on the welfare of children involved?

James Brokenshire: Representations are made on a range of different issues, and clearly we pay particular attention to the welfare of children. I understand and recognise my hon. Friend’s continuing interest in and focus on these matters. We keep these matters under consideration, but as I have already said, the level of asylum support provided to children properly recognises their additional needs and requirements, and we will keep our focus on that.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for the post-Easter week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for the week commencing 28 April is as follows:
	Monday 28 April—Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill.
	Tuesday 29 April—Motions relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Defence Reform Bill.
	Wednesday 30 April—Motion relating to section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, followed by consideration in Committee of the Wales Bill.
	Thursday 1 May—A debate on a motion relating to cervical cancer screening tests and the case of Sophie Jones, followed by a general debate on freedom of thought, conscience and religion around the world. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 2 May—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 5 May will include:
	Monday 5 May—The House will not be sitting.
	Tuesday 6 May—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Wales Bill.
	Wednesday 7 May—Consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 8 May—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 9 May—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 1 May will be:
	Thursday 1 May—Debate on the Second Report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, on the impact of changes to housing benefit in Wales, followed by a debate on the Third Report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, on the Work programme in Wales.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for after the Easter recess. I also thank him for finally providing, in a written ministerial answer earlier this week, what I hope will be the actual date for the Queen’s Speech. Perhaps he can now confirm that Prorogation will be at least a week, or even two weeks, early due to the Government’s chronic lack of business. Could I make the Leader of the House an offer? If he cannot think of anything to do with the acres of spare time the Government have left free, he can always give us more Opposition days.
	On the first two days back after the recess, we will have the chance to debate the Second Reading of the High Speed Rail Bill. Will the Leader of the House explain how he plans to schedule the day and a half allocated to the Second Reading and the subsequent motions? Given the fate last night of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who was unceremoniously sacked as a Tory vice-chair for opposing HS2 and for his overly honest tweets, is the Leader of the House expecting any more trouble on his own side?
	This week, the other place voted to introduce in the Immigration Bill legal guardians for victims of child trafficking. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government accept this amendment, and when he expects the long awaited modern slavery Bill, which ought to have a bearing on this matter, to have its Second Reading?
	I have here a copy of a blatantly party political letter sent out by the Prime Minister to millions of businesses across the UK days before election purdah. It is perfectly possible to keep businesses informed of tax changes cheaply and cost-effectively via a Government website. It is certainly not appropriate for Lynton Crosby’s Tory election soundbite to be posted directly to millions of voters on a No. 10 letterhead signed by the Prime Minister, at the taxpayer’s expense, just ahead of elections. Will Leader of the House tell us how much producing, printing and posting this blatant Tory propaganda has cost the public purse? Why did the permanent secretary at the Treasury, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, tell the Public Accounts Committee on Monday that he had absolutely no knowledge of it? Can we expect the Communities and Local Government Secretary to admonish the Prime Minister for this blatant example of propaganda on the public purse?
	The past week has done serious damage to the reputation of this place and demonstrated the Prime Minister’s total lack of judgment. It was clear to everybody but him that the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), had to go from her post as Culture Secretary. On Friday, he wanted the matter to be left at that 31-second apology; on Monday, he was dismissing rising public anger, saying it was his job to pick the Cabinet; and by yesterday he was claiming it was all the Leader of the Opposition’s fault for not demanding the Culture Secretary’s resignation soon enough. After this fiasco, it is little wonder that the Prime Minister’s judgment is being openly called into question.
	The number of women in the Cabinet is now at its lowest since the Tories were last in government. We have a Minister for Women who did not vote for same-sex marriage, and we have a Department for Women and Equalities that does not appear to exist any more. Perhaps they should just come clean and rename it the Department for very low Tory priorities. Will the Leader of the House tell us who now has overall responsibility for the Government Equalities Office? Can he tell us which Department the new Minister for Women will sit in and who she will report to? Will he now tell us which Minister is ultimately accountable to Parliament on these extremely important issues, as the Prime Minister’s official spokesman could not do so yesterday. May we have a debate in the acres of Government time on what has happened to the Prime Minister’s pre-election promise to ensure that one third of all his Ministers would be women? It is no wonder that women just do not trust this Government.
	As this will be the last business questions before the recess, may I thank all the staff of the House and Hansard for the work they do and wish them a happy Easter? I wonder if the Leader of the House will ensure that while we are in recess, the House authorities conduct the necessary repairs to the roof in Portcullis House which, like this Government, appears to be well
	on its way to caving in. I am sure he would not want anyone to think he did not fix the roof while the sun was shining.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the statement of business, and I am pleased to join her in wishing all the staff of the House a happy and restful short recess over Easter.
	I was able to confirm this week the date of the state opening of Parliament. It will be Wednesday 4 June. As I think the House will understand, this was consequent on the change arising from the cancellation of the G8 summit. The adjusted timing of the meeting of G7 Ministers allowed us to have the state opening on Wednesday 4 June.
	I cannot announce the date of Prorogation. It will be subject to the progress of business. I am surprised at the hon. Lady’s argument that we are not busy. We are busy. This week we considered the Finance Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House. On Monday, at the request of Members, including three Select Committees of the House, we provided time for a debate on the justice and home affairs opt-out. We concluded two hours early because there were not sufficient Members who wanted to debate it. The Government are happy to make available the time that the House is looking for, but it has been notable on a number of occasions, as I have told the shadow Leader of the House before, that her colleagues will not take the time available to scrutinise the Government. Perhaps they find it embarrassing to come to the House and attempt to criticise the Government, when they know perfectly well that they have no credible alternative. That may just be the way it is.
	As it happens, when we return from recess, we have a busy two days, as the shadow Leader of the House correctly—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is disparaging the Wednesday. As I recall, we are considering in Committee the Wales Bill. I am sure that Members from Wales will note that the shadow Leader of the House thinks that consideration of the Wales Bill is not important, but there we are. There will be an opportunity on the Wales Bill to see whether Labour Members will turn up and criticise our proposal for further tax devolution in circumstances where they do not appear to have any policy. They are at sixes and sevens about whether they are in favour or against our plans for further tax devolution in Wales. We shall see.
	The shadow Leader of the House rightly asked about the Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill. I can confirm that on Monday 28 April I will table a motion, the effect of which will be to allow that Second Reading to take place until 11 pm on that day, so a maximum amount of time will be made available. The maximum of seven and a half hours will, of course, depend on whether there are requirements for a statement or an urgent question, but that means it will be a very full debate on the Monday. On the Tuesday, I can confirm that we will allocate up to four hours for consideration of the motions which I think Members can see on the Order Paper today relating to the hybrid Bill procedures, including petitioning and instructions to the Select Committee and the establishment of the Select Committee. I hope that that will allow Members to have the maximum time for the discussion of the principles of the Bill on the Monday and additional time to debate the processes of the hybrid Bill on the Tuesday.
	In total, we are giving more than a day and a half for Second Reading, and not trying to push through all those issues of process and principles in the course of one day. I heard, as did my colleagues in the usual channels, that Members wanted additional time to debate the Second Reading of the HS2 Bill, and I think that makes a very good outcome.
	I am not sure what point the shadow Leader of the House was trying to make about yesterday’s Government appointments, because we are very clear about them. The Equalities Minister and the Minister for Women are supremely qualified to speak on those subjects. They are senior Ministers who will have an opportunity to represent those interests at the Cabinet table. If anything, having two Ministers will strengthen the voice of women and equality issues for the future. The Minister for Women will report to the Prime Minister and the Equalities Minister is also the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I think that is all very clear.
	The shadow Leader of the House mentioned the Standards Committee report, which was published this time last week. Everyone in this House has a collective and individual responsibility. The process is transparent. We have not got across to the public the way in which this House’s expenses system works in this Parliament. There are more than 200 Members who were not in previous Parliaments, but none the less they are having to argue with their constituents about an expenses system to which they were never party. We have to fight a battle in order for the public to understand that we have reformed the expenses system. It is overseen and enforced independently by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. If there is an appeal, it goes not to Members of Parliament, but to a lower-tier tribunal, which is a judicial process. I think that that is what the public have wanted from the expenses system since May 2010 and that it is what they want for the future.
	We know that there are legacy cases. Fundamentally, any sanctions under the standards process must come back to this House and we must be accountable for the quality of the enforcement of the Members’ code of conduct. When I responded to an urgent question on Tuesday, the Chair of the Standards Committee made clear that it will announce shortly the terms of reference for an inquiry into the current system that will draw on the report that its lay members published on Tuesday. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we should work with the Committee on a cross-party basis, in whatever way we can, to strengthen the independence of the system of scrutiny of legacy expenses cases, the independent input into any investigation, and the enforcement of the Members’ code of conduct.
	We have also committed to introducing a recall Bill, which will provide for constituents to sign a petition in order to force a by-election in cases where a Member has been found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing. I hope we can work together on the issues, to give the public reassurance. I was disappointed that earlier this week the shadow Leader of the House sought to turn the decision of the Standards Committee into a partisan matter. I think that got the tone wrong. We need to work together to restore trust in the political system. That is a responsibility for the whole of this House, and individual political parties should not try to score political points.
	Baroness Butler-Sloss’s amendment to the Immigration Bill was passed in the House of Lords and it raises important points. I listened to her speech, and at the end of it she said she wanted the issues to be addressed by the modern slavery Bill. The draft Bill has undergone pre-legislative scrutiny and the Joint Committee has produced a report on it, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will respond to that.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about the vice-chair of the Conservative party and a letter. Those are matters for the Conservative party, and I answer for the coalition Government at this Dispatch Box. I will ask the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), to write to the shadow Leader of the House about the issues.

Charles Walker: The Leader of the House will know that a number of the Procedure Committee’s fabulous reports are gathering dust at the moment, particularly those relating to programming and private Members’ Bills, while a couple of others are equally as deserving of time in this place. Will he find an occasion in the next few weeks to allow me to introduce those reports for debate on the Floor of the House in this Session?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Procedure Committee, makes a very good point. I assure him that the reports are not gathering dust; as he knows from our conversations, we are actively seeking to take forward his Committee’s recommendations—not least in relation to private Members’ Bills and programming—on the basis of consensus, as we always seek to do in this House. My hon. Friend has highlighted that there is pressure for business that we need to transact before the conclusion of this Session. I hope that I can satisfy him on that matter before the end of this Session.

Meg Hillier: I, too, have received a letter from No. 10 Downing street this week. What is most alarming is that the information can have come only from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. At the Public Accounts Committee on Monday, the permanent secretary of HMRC acknowledged that it sometimes shares information with other Departments. Will the Leader of the House take more seriously the issue of how No. 10 and the Conservative party can send out letters to people using information from the HMRC database?

Andrew Lansley: I will simply repeat what I have said. I will ask the Minister without Portfolio to respond to the hon. Lady and the shadow Leader of the House. I am not aware of any such transfer of data in relation to the letter. I was not even party to the process of preparing the letter.

Cheryl Gillan: Why are the Government so frightened of giving Members of Parliament a decent time to debate the HS2 Bill on Second Reading? Quite frankly, giving us an extra hour, with an extra half day for the other motions on the Order Paper, is all well and good, but may I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to item 35 on the list of remaining orders and notices, which is a motion in my name asking for two full days of debate on HS2? After all, for the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken
	by a Government and after our constituents have been blighted by it for four years, that is not too much to ask, and not granting it will bring our procedures in this House into disrepute.

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend feels that I have not responded positively to the representations that she and our other hon. Friends made at business questions last week. We have, indeed, responded positively. Up to seven and a half hours are available on Monday 28 April for a debate on the principles of the Bill, and four hours are available on Tuesday 29 April for the further hybrid Bill procedures, which are themselves important and form a substantial part of the overall debate on Second Reading. I acknowledge that had it all been done in one day, that would have meant a very congested debate, but I think that that is pretty positive.
	A Second Reading debate on a normal sitting day very often takes not the full amount of time, but sometimes—with statements and urgent questions—perhaps five hours or even down to four and a half hours. On this occasion, if we can minimise statements and urgent questions on Monday 28 April, we can have seven and a half hours of debate that day, with four hours the following day, which I calculate is broadly equivalent to two days of debate.

Luciana Berger: Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
	“What we are trying to do with the personal independence payment is to introduce it gradually”.—[Official Report, 9 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 264.]
	My constituent Thomas O’Donnell originally made his claim eight months ago. He has only just had an assessment, and he is still not receiving any payment. He has serious epilepsy, and he cannot afford to eat. I have many other constituents who have waited months for an assessment. Please may we have an urgent statement from the Department for Work and Pensions about what it will do to ensure that my constituents and people everywhere get the support that they desperately need?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady is no doubt aware that a written ministerial statement on the independent review of personal independence payment assessment is on the Order Paper to be made today, so she will have the chance to look at that. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the old system was broken: most claimants were getting indefinite awards without systematic reassessments. It was important to bring in a system that better reflects today’s understanding of disability and targets support to those who need it most. Last month’s National Audit Office report acknowledged that the reform started on time and on budget, and we have reduced risk during its introduction by rolling it out in phases.

Bob Russell: As we approach the centenary of the great war, will the Government find time for a debate on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which does a wonderful job across the world of looking after the fallen of the first and second world wars? Unfortunately, military personnel
	who have died in the past 68 years are covered not by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission but by the Ministry of Defence, through which funding is at a much lower level.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises an issue that I and colleagues on both sides of the House are keen to discuss. A large amount of impressive work, not least by Members, is going into securing a commemoration of the events 100 years ago, including the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission since then, which was celebrated wonderfully in a recent book. I hope we will have an opportunity before the summer recess for a further debate that enables Members on both sides of the House to raise issues relating to that commemoration.

Kelvin Hopkins: There are serious concerns about air pollution in our cities, notably London, and there is particular concern about the effect of diesel particulates on human health. It is now a matter of urgency to reduce diesel emissions, which could be achieved through a substantial modal shift of freight traffic from road to rail. Such a modal shift cannot happen unless there is major investment in large-gauge rail freight capacity capable of carrying lorries on trains. Will the Leader of the House seek to find Government time for a debate on this important matter?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot immediately promise a debate. The subject might lend itself to an Adjournment debate or a debate through the Backbench Business Committee, as Members on both sides of the House, on a non-party basis, are rightly interested in these issues. HS2 affords a substantial opportunity to increase freight capacity on the railways, which should be part of the debate when we come back. It is not simply about a transfer from road to rail; it is about trying to introduce some of the new technologies that may dramatically reduce the impact of road traffic on air quality.

Julian Lewis: This is two for the price of one, because I am asking this question with the strong support of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who cannot be here this morning. Given that women’s rights are currently so much in the minds of the Government and the Opposition, may we have an urgent statement on the continuing scandal of the cancellation of service widows’ pensions when they remarry or cohabit? The cost to the Ministry of Defence of removing this archaic rule would be £250,000—less than that when we take away the cost of policing the rule. This is an anachronism that ought to be removed as soon as possible.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I will, of course, ask my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence to reply in detail. He will understand that if service personnel die as a direct result of service, their widow still receives their pension, even if the widow were to remarry or cohabit. The treatment of widows where the spouse’s death is not as a result of service is broadly the same as for other public service pension schemes. The armed forces pension scheme 2005, and the new pension scheme to be introduced in 2015, will continue to pay widows a pension irrespective of how their spouse died. There are
	further detailed points that I know my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence will want to convey to him and other Members.

Nigel Dodds: Issues to do with the past in Northern Ireland are matters for this place as they are not devolved. May we have a debate in Government time on issues to do with victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland so that legislation accurately reflects what most people would reasonably regard as what constitutes a victim? This is particularly pertinent given that today the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland announced that Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein councillors in Newry breached equality rules by naming a children’s play park after an IRA terrorist.

Andrew Lansley: I am not familiar with the issue in Newry, so I will refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I will ask her to respond to the right hon. Gentleman in more detail. I entirely understand the responsibility that we have in relation to victims. I hope that she will be able to give him some reassurance on that matter.

Peter Bone: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) made a very good point. The problem in this House is that we have a dictator who decides the timings, even if it is a benevolent dictator in the form of the Leader of the House. Surely meeting the commitment in the coalition agreement to a House business committee would remove all these concerns. Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week to say that we will have a House business committee very soon?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will be aware of the evidence that I gave to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on the difficulties associated with the proposals for a House business committee. In a sense, we are a Committee of the whole House on business. Last week, I received representations about how much time should be available on Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill. As I have explained to the House, the time available is not just a day and a half, but more than a day and a half. It could amount to close to the equivalent of two days’ debate on Second Reading and the other motions.

Cheryl Gillan: One hour!

Andrew Lansley: My right hon. Friend is saying that there is one hour. There will be an additional hour on the Monday for Second Reading and there will be four hours on motions relating to the hybrid Bill on the Tuesday. That is a substantial addition. This has been discussed through the usual channels and we have listened to the voices in this House.

Mr Speaker: I say gently to the Leader of the House that, in extending the Monday sitting by an hour, I feel sure that he was taking pity on the Chair and did not want the Chair to be occupied beyond 11 o’clock. For my part, I would be quite happy to sit in the Chair until at least 3 or 4 in the morning if it facilitated the contribution of Back-Bench colleagues to the debate. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I mention that point purely in passing, but these are matters for him.

Barry Sheerman: I am sure that the Leader of the House will have heard that there was a slogan after the first world war, which I think came from Lloyd George, that promised “homes fit for heroes”. When we get back to our constituencies, all of us in this House will hear people say time and again over the recess, “When will so many people get the opportunity of a home of their own, whether it is a privately rented home, social housing or a home that is bought with a mortgage?” This is a national crisis. May we have a debate on it as soon as we get back?

Andrew Lansley: That matter came up a number of times in the Budget debate. An important point in that debate was that this Government are putting more and more effective resources into measures such as the Help to Buy scheme and the efforts of housing associations to lend to support additional house building. House building in this country hit a low under the last Government in the wake of the collapse in 2008 and in the midst of the Labour recession. We have built up the number of starts. If the hon. Gentleman would like to take a detour on his way to Huddersfield, he could see houses being built all over South Cambridgeshire.

David Heath: Will the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport make a statement to the House on the provision of high-speed broadband in very rural areas? I fear that the success of the roll-out in Somerset and Devon will be undone by the failure to reach the last 10% of properties. That is partly because of the requirement for match funding, which is difficult to meet for sparsely populated areas, and partly because of the effect of the over-reliance on BT on areas to which it clearly does not want to or cannot provide a service.

Andrew Lansley: I will raise the matter with the Secretary of State and I think that he will want to take it forward. The former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), is to be congratulated on the steps that she has taken to bring our broadband programme to where it is, with 10,000 homes a week getting access to broadband and an investment of more than £1 billion in our broadband and mobile infrastructure. It will deliver a lot of additional connectivity.
	My hon. Friend is right, as I know from the rural areas in Cambridgeshire. The Connecting Cambridgeshire programme will get us to 98% of homes, but it has required significant local authority funding to establish the contract with BT and attract the additional Government funding. I know that the Secretary of State will want to respond to him about these matters.

Albert Owen: May we have a debate in Government time on the Government’s plans to fully privatise search and rescue? That would provide us with the opportunity to discuss moving search and rescue headquarters from the base in my constituency to Caernarfon airport, where according to the Environment Agency it will be built on a floodplain. We need to have such discussions before the Government rush ahead with their plans.

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a debate immediately when we return, but I will discuss the matter with the relevant Ministers, particularly the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman raises, so that they might respond to him.

Tim Loughton: At the end of last month the Education Secretary announced a list of more than 20 children’s institutions to be investigated for links with Savile. That is on top of the growing list of more than 30 NHS institutions being investigated, with no date for the publication of the review, and the reviews of the BBC, the Church and so on. Given the Government’s continued refusal to have an overarching inquiry into historical child abuse, may we at least have a debate on what exactly has been happening and what is being done to restore public confidence in child protection in the United Kingdom?

Andrew Lansley: I know my hon. Friend will understand that we have continued to believe that establishing an overarching inquiry, far from speeding up the process of finding out what happened so that we can ensure that it does not happen again, would delay it. It is important to make progress, because shockingly widespread evidence is emerging of the extent to which Savile obtained access to hospitals, schools and care homes. We need to get to the bottom of it, and I know that Kate Lampard is doing so in the health service. There is more to be done in the case of education, and the BBC is approaching two and a half months late in publishing the Dame Janet Smith inquiry. There is a lot to be done, and I will of course talk to the Ministers concerned about how we can ensure that as much as possible is done as quickly as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I gently point out to the House that Members are supposed to be present at the start if they wish to participate in business questions? An hon. Member who happened to toddle into the Chamber, let us say, 32 minutes after the start—I mention that figure arbitrarily and in passing—would be indulging in a triumph of optimism over reality if they expected to be called.

Barry Gardiner: As we approach the wedding season, many British citizens who have extended family abroad will become increasingly concerned about visa arrangements to ensure that their relatives, particularly from India and Pakistan, can be here to participate. Will the Leader of the House speak to both the Foreign Office and the Home Office to ensure that the consular arrangements are in place and that there is good staffing of entry clearance officers to cope with the influx of visa applications for that purpose?

Andrew Lansley: I will of course be glad to do as the hon. Gentleman asks, recognising how strongly people feel about the opportunity for their family to be with them on special occasions. I hope that the Foreign Office and Home Office will be able to respond positively to him.

Christopher Pincher: As this is export week, will the Leader of the House grant time to discuss the value of local export drives such as the one
	that I am organising in Tamworth with UK Trade & Investment, and the help that local retail banks can provide in sponsoring and promoting those events? We often hear about the less attractive side of banking, but retail banks can help small businesses to export, and a debate would help to even up the balance.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I pay tribute to UKTI, which, with the Government’s active support—not least that of our excellent trade Ministers—has dramatically improved the level of support available to small and medium-sized businesses in particular. I know that the Government are pushing hard for many medium-sized businesses to be given one-to-one tailored support that enables them to be active exporters. I hope we can achieve more of that, and I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend is doing with his colleagues in Tamworth to help to make that happen.

Paul Flynn: After four years of a Government who promised reform, we still have an election system that cheats all but the two main parties. We have peerages that can be bought by political donations, lobbyists who are free to buy favours and influence, and one civil servant who negotiated a £5 billion reduction in Deloitte’s tax bill retired months later and took a job with that company. Can we have a debate on whether the epitaph for this sorry Government should be, “They multiplied and allowed corruption to flourish”?

Andrew Lansley: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong in several respects. In particular, it is not possible to buy peerages, and the House of Lords Appointments Commission is clear about its responsibility to make sure that that does not happen. Additionally, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the coalition Government had a coalition programme that included giving the public the opportunity to make a decision on changes to the electoral system, and the public—the people whom we represent—chose not to do so.

John Randall: Sometimes my motives are misconstrued, but I always strive to be helpful, and I would like to help the Leader of the House. He has been very generous in allowing an extra 60 minutes for the HS2 debate, but if he were happy to test our stamina by lifting the 10 o’clock rule and having the vote the following day, those Members who did not want to stay until the early hours for a vote could come back then, while those of us who really want to push the case for or against HS2 would have ample opportunity to do so. That may be a way forward.

Andrew Lansley: I am always grateful to my right hon. Friend, not least when he is being helpful. The additional hour—if we are able to avoid urgent questions or statements—would give us substantial time for debate on that Monday. As a matter of principle, and especially on important matters, we should try to avoid separating the vote on an issue from the debate on it. It is also important for the House, notwithstanding your generosity, Mr Speaker, to try to achieve the conclusion of a debate and the vote at a time when our constituents might reasonably expect to be watching it.

Mr Speaker: The point is made: as long as right hon. and hon. Members are standing to speak in that debate, I shall be in my Chair.

Kevin Brennan: We now have a women’s Minister who could not also have the equalities brief because she voted against gay marriage, and an equalities Minister who said that there were no women members of the Monetary Policy Committee because it was appointed on merit. May we have the novel innovation of a joint statement by the women’s Minister and the equalities Minister so that we can find out whether they are singing from the same song sheet?

Andrew Lansley: I know both the new equalities Minister and the new women’s Minister very well, and the hon. Gentleman is on a very sticky wicket in attempting to criticise them.

Chris Heaton-Harris: May we have an urgent statement on internet security? Several experts have called for everyone to change their internet passwords because of a virus that has infected many websites. Indeed, earlier today I tried to change my password to “Labour’s economic policy”, but it was judged to be too weak.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes both a good comment and a good joke. I saw the press reports and we still have more to do to understand and combat the risks to security on the internet. I note that police forces need constantly to think about how they can acquire the expertise themselves. He makes a very important point.

Gavin Shuker: Could provision be made for a debate on the performance of category B railway stations? Luton railway station is in desperate need of refurbishment and investment. It has actually gone backwards, not forwards, because of the Thameslink programme in terms of disability compliance.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have the largest investment programme in the railways since the Victorian era. Network Rail is investing £38 billion, which includes a substantial upgrade to many of its railway stations. If I may, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport, in consultation with Network Rail, to reply on the specific points relating to Luton.

Neil Carmichael: Noting the fact that HS2 is of course an impressive flagship for infrastructure, we must not forget smaller-scale activities. May I therefore commend to the Lord Privy Seal a bridge over the River Severn and moving Stonehouse station? Those two things would be a real boost to my constituency.

Andrew Lansley: Despite the considerable financial difficulty the Government inherited, we have none the less been able to prioritise capital infrastructure projects that will deliver our potential for growth. As my hon. Friend will know, towards the end of this year the Chancellor will publish the long-term capital plan. I will direct his points on those particular projects to my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport and the Treasury.

Madeleine Moon: The Service Complaints Commissioner’s report for 2013 reveals that complaints about bullying, harassment and discrimination account for 43% of Army allegations, and that bullying was up by a third. Complaints are made disproportionately by female and ethnic minority personnel. Equality and diversity training in the Army consists of an initial two-hour training course and a half-hour refresher every year. May we have a debate on the report and on how to tackle an embedded culture of bullying, harassment and discrimination that is blighting the lives of many in our armed forces?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady raises an important point. I saw the Service Complaints Commissioner’s report. It is important that we further strengthen the role of the commissioner and raise awareness of all the issues to which she refers. I will, if I may, ask my hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence to respond, but I assure her that I know, from my conversations with colleagues, that these issues are taken very seriously.

David Nuttall: May we have a debate on the use of public money in murder cases, so that the House can consider whether it is appropriate for legal aid to be spent on paying for an appeal by one of the murderers of Drummer Lee Rigby? The public are rightly outraged by this and believe the money would be better spent on providing a fitting memorial for Fusilier Rigby.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes his own point. What happened in Woolwich last year was a sickening and barbaric attack. Our thoughts remain with the family of the victim and with the community. They are grieving for someone they love. They have lost a brave soldier. On legal aid, my hon. Friend will know that legal aid is available for all criminal cases in the Court of Appeal. However, a judge has to grant leave to appeal and the court can also grant legal aid.

Andrew Love: Momentous changes are taking place in the housing market: the private rented sector has grown enormously and has now overtaken the social sector; owner occupation is in decline; and supply is not matching demand. I challenge the figures the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on this matter. Homelessness is on the increase. May we have a debate in Government time on this important subject? It is critical to my constituents and to constituents in every area of the country.

Andrew Lansley: It was under the last Government that the number of social houses fell by 400,000. It is this Government who are investing and planning to build 180,000 additional affordable homes, and housing waiting lists are currently falling. Those are important steps. However, we need to build more houses, and, in doing so, recognise the need for a vibrant private rented sector and a strong social housing sector, as well as the support for owner occupation that we are providing through the Help to Buy scheme.

Philip Hollobone: May I encourage the Leader of the House to call the bluff of the shadow Leader of the House and accept her application for
	more Opposition day debates? Indeed, may I encourage him to allow the Opposition a whole week of parliamentary time? Opposition day debates are badly argued and poorly attended, and demonstrate very bad preparation. If we had a whole week of them, the incoherence and inadequacy of the Opposition’s alternative programme for government would be plain for the world to see.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend tempts me, but there is a lot of business for us to accommodate before the end of the Session. In any case, I think that what he has said is not only true, but was amply demonstrated during the Budget debate.

Jeremy Corbyn: Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), may I ask the Leader of the House to answer another question? According to Generation Rent, which represents the interests of private tenants throughout the country, half those tenants believe that they are paying too high a rent, and two thirds of them believe that they are insecure in their assured shorthold six-month tenancies. Does the Leader of the House not think that it is time for the Government once again to review their whole policy on the private rented sector, given the excessive charges and rents and the deep insecurity that many private tenants feel? Can he not ensure that we bring some justice to the people—nearly 4 million in England alone—who are living in the private rented sector?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman made the same point, rather more briefly, to the Prime Minister, and I agree with what the Prime Minister said. We cannot start trying to distort the market or control rents, because that would destroy the private rented sector. The availability of private rented accommodation creates diversity in the housing market, and enables people to be more flexible in relation to housing supply. That is very important, not least because—as our country’s economy, unlike many other European economies, has demonstrated —housing markets can help to provide flexible labour markets.

Andrew Jones: When I opened the Harrogate beer festival last week—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Yes, it was an arduous task. When I opened the festival, I was told by local brewers Eric Lucas of Daleside and Simon Theakston of Theakston that the recent beer duty cuts had galvanised the industry into increased confidence. One of the effects of that has been the stimulation of export activity, and both companies are reporting very encouraging trends. However, the overall picture in this country is of a big food and drink deficit. Please may we have a debate about food and drink exports, and about how we can help this important sector to grow?

Andrew Lansley: I am delighted to hear about the optimism among brewers in Yorkshire. My hon. Friend has also made a good point about the food and drink sector, which has reported export sales of £19.4 billion in 2013. That is a very big contribution to our economy and our exports. I cannot promise a debate about the sector immediately, but it would be good to have such a
	debate, because I think that this country has a great deal to offer the world through its food and drink exports.

Diana Johnson: I am sure the Leader of the House will be concerned to learn that the insurance premium of a small business that was flooded during the December tidal surge in Hull has been increased from £1,100 to £6,500, as a result of which it is unlikely to remain viable. May we have a debate about why the Government chose not to include small businesses in the coalition’s Flood Re scheme, and about what other support can be given to small businesses that may flood in the future?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will know that in the debates on the Water Bill we were very clear that if we were to include businesses in the Flood Re scheme, the nature of the scheme would mean that the cost of that subsidy would have to be met out of other insurance premiums, and that would have taken the insurance premiums for everyone else on domestic premiums above the £10. We have set out the reason why we are not doing that, therefore, but, as it happens, we will, I hope, have an opportunity soon to consider the Lords amendments to the Water Bill. That might give the hon. Lady an opportunity to debate this issue.

Rehman Chishti: The Football Association has launched its inclusion advisory board which is working to encourage more involvement in football by women and the minorities community. May we have a debate on that, and on what other sports are doing to address this? By way of a declaration, I should mention that I am a parliamentary fellow with the Football Association and prior to that with Sport England.

Andrew Lansley: I have noticed that Members often ask for debates on matters relating to football and I agree with my hon. Friend that that is another important and interesting issue that would merit debate. We had a debate recently about participation in non-league football, but I think there is an as yet unmet need for debate about the governance of football and many other issues relating to football.

Julie Hilling: The Prime Minister told the House last week that Labour’s manifesto proposed the selling off of Royal Mail. As this is not correct, please can we have a statement from the Prime Minister setting the record straight?

Andrew Lansley: What the Prime Minister set out is that the Labour party before the last election was very clear about its commitment to bringing private capital into the Royal Mail. If we were going to deliver a successful Royal Mail, it was absolutely essential that its investment programme should be funded by private capital, and what we have achieved has done that—and the Labour party, after years of failing to do that while recognising it was essential, should just recognise that fact.

Robert Halfon: I welcome the £200 million announced by the Chancellor in the Budget for pothole repairs, but is my right hon. Friend aware that on the 125 miles of road in Harlow the number of
	defects has increased? There were 632 individual potholes in the first quarter of 2014 in Harlow alone. May we have a statement regarding any extra support being provided to local authorities to tackle potholes on our roads and to make the lives of Harlow motorists easier?

Andrew Lansley: I did not know the precise number, but I am not surprised. I think many Members will know, as my hon. Friend does, how difficult the consequences have been of the very unusual—exceptional—weather we experienced this winter, and, indeed, the previous winter, both of which have had a substantial impact on the quality of our roads. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided the additional £200 million to address the problem of potholes, £168 million of that being made available to councils in England. I would just remind my hon. Friend and the House that that is additional to the over £1 billion provided to local authorities this year for tackling highways maintenance. Of course local authorities must decide their priorities, but much of that money will go towards repairing the quality of these roads.

Derek Twigg: The Department of Health confirmed this week that in Halton the ratio of patients to GPs is much higher than the English national average. May I ask the Leader of the House to arrange for a debate so the Department of Health can tell us what it is doing to increase the number of GPs in disadvantaged areas such as Halton?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a debate immediately, but I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to contact NHS England about that. One of its responsibilities is to commission those primary care services, and it has a statutory requirement to try to secure equal access to services, so equal access to general practice is one of the central objectives it has to meet.

Greg Mulholland: Last January the Government committed to legislate to introduce a statutory code of practice for the large pub companies. The following consultation showed that 67% of those responding want the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s market rent-only option, which is also backed by the majority of MPs in this House. Considering that there has been something of a lack of Government business, it seems very strange that we have had no announcement. Will the Leader of the House tell the House what is stopping the announcement of this legislation coming forward and who is stopping that happening?

Andrew Lansley: I must take issue with my hon. Friend on one point: there is no lack of Government business. We have three carry-over Bills that have just completed their Committee stage, for example. We have not yet been able to schedule an opportunity for them to come back to the Floor of the House. We have also had consideration on the Floor of the House of the Wales Bill and the Finance Bill, and the Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill has
	now been scheduled. A substantial amount of business is still being dealt with in this Session. In response to my hon. Friend’s question, we have had a consultation and we are considering the results. It will not surprise him to learn that I am not in any position to pre-empt the contents of the Queen’s Speech, in which the issues relating to future legislation will be clarified.

Mike Kane: The first industrial city, Manchester, is proud of its trade links right across the world. They were established in the 19th century by the ship canal and are being continued by Manchester airport. Today, Manchester Airport Group announced the first direct flights for 16 years to south-east Asia, with Cathay Pacific flights to Hong Kong. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the all-party support for this development, which has come from the chamber of commerce, the combined authority, the local enterprise partnership, the Manchester-China forum and my predecessor, Paul Goggins, who fought hard for it. Will the Leader of the House also talk to the Secretary of State for Transport about arranging for some time in the House to make this announcement?

Andrew Lansley: I am delighted to have this opportunity to join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating that new route and acknowledging all those who contributed to making it happen. I remember my own experience of working with the Manchester chamber of commerce, when I was with the British Chambers of Commerce, and I know what a remarkable institution it has been for bringing people together, from the 19th century right up to the 21st century, and for looking outwards. That is what we need to do: we need more exports, and we need to win in the global race. We have the businesses, the capabilities, the innovation and the skills, not least in a great city such as Manchester, and this is an opportunity for Manchester to go out there and sell.

Jim Shannon: Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement on the decline of overseas student numbers, on how that is affecting the local economy, and on how Parliament and the Government can increase our educational exports?

Andrew Lansley: That is an interesting issue, but I cannot promise an immediate debate. It is important to look at the statistics, which have shown variable results. Many universities in this country have successfully expanded their overseas student numbers in recent years, for example. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister for Universities and Science have made it clear that there is no bar on universities taking students from overseas for legitimate courses. We have clamped down on abuse, but there is no limit on the number of students they can take. Indeed, the numbers coming from many countries have grown. There is clearly a problem in relation to India and Pakistan, however, which is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary went there recently to make it clear that there is no limit on those countries’ students coming to our universities for their higher education.

Police Recorded Crime Statistics

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SELECT COMMITTEE

Mr Speaker: We now come to the Select Committee statement. The Chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I—or the occupant of the Chair, whoever it is—will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Mr Jenkin to respond to these in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions, and they should be brief. Members on the Front Bench may of course take part in the questioning. I call the Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee, Mr Bernard Jenkin.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for this opportunity to launch the Public Administration Select Committee’s report entitled “Caught red-handed: Why we can’t count on Police Recorded Crime statistics”. The Daily Telegraph has already described our report as “devastating”. That is because this is not just about inaccurate numbers; it is about the long crisis of values and ethics at the heart of our police force.
	Crime statistics are central to our understanding of the nature and prevalence of crime in England and Wales. They provide crucial information for the police, without which they would have no way of knowing how to deploy their manpower and resources. We found strong evidence that the police under-record crime, particularly sexual crimes such as rape, in many police areas. Lax supervision of recorded crime data means that the police are failing in their core role of protecting the public and preventing crime. The main reason for this mis-recording is the continued prevalence of numerical targets. They create perverse incentives to mis-record crime, so a police officer is presented with a conflict: does he or she record “attempted burglary”, as was originally reported, or subsequently downgrade it to “criminal damage” in order to achieve the burglary target? That creates conflict between the achievement of targets and core policing values. We deprecate the use of targets in the strongest possible terms. But most police forces are still in denial about the damage that targets cause both to data integrity and to standards of behaviour.
	The Home Office must accept responsibility for the quality of police recorded crime statistics and do more to discourage the use of targets. As a result of PASC’s inquiry, the UK Statistics Authority has already stripped police recorded crime data of the quality kitemark, “National Statistics”. The Home Office, the Office for National Statistics and the UK Statistics Authority have all been far too passive in addressing this problem, even though they have all known about it for years. Leadership by targets is a flawed leadership model, and that is what really must be addressed, because poor data integrity reflects the poor quality of leadership within the police. What does the institutional dishonesty about police recorded crime say about their compliance with the core values of policing, which are meant to include accountability, honesty and integrity?
	That comes on top of all the other controversies that have raised questions about the values and ethics of the police and their leadership: Hillsborough; Stephen Lawrence; the attempt to hide the cause of Ian Tomlinson’s death in the G20 protests; Plebgate; Operation Elveden, about the police accepting payments from journalists to leak unauthorised information; just last month, four police officers under investigation for allegedly getting a burglar to confess to 500 crimes he apparently did not commit; and many other instances.
	I yield to no one in my admiration and respect for so many police officers. They put their lives at risk in the line of duty while they serve our communities. We see them around this Palace, ready to throw themselves between us and the terrorists if the need arises. Yet these same officers are deeply cynical about the quality of their leadership and its honesty and integrity.
	That is why we recommend that the Committee on Standards in Public Life conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the police’s compliance with the new code of ethics and, in particular, into the role of leadership in promoting and sustaining those values.
	The most depressing part of our inquiry is the way in which the Metropolitan police have treated my constituent, PC James Patrick, who was our key witness. He says he has been forced to resign from the Metropolitan police. Acting as a whistleblower, he tried to highlight serious concerns about police recorded crime and the target culture. We record the fact that we are indebted to PC Patrick for his courage in speaking out, in fulfilment of his duty to the highest standards of public service despite intense pressure to the contrary.
	I am pleased that the Minister for Crime Prevention has now written to me—he is on the Front Bench at the moment—to say that the Home Office is looking at a range of what he calls radical proposals to strengthen the protection of whistleblowers within the police. But this has all come too late for PC Patrick. By a quirk of the rules, police offices are denied what is called “interim relief” in constructive dismissal cases, so he will cease to be paid from 6 June while he awaits his tribunal, which will not be until August or September.
	We are calling for Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to investigate the Metropolitan police service in respect of the treatment of PC Patrick. We do not believe that the Metropolitan police service has treated him fairly or with respect and care.

Jack Dromey: I have a brief question, but first may I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and PASC for a forensic report which charts a long-standing and deep-seated problem? Sir Andrew Dilnot said in evidence to the Committee that the more accurate crime statistics become, the more likely they are to show that crime is rising. Now that we have the Committee’s verdict that we can no longer rely on crime statistics, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be most unwise, until such time as the system has been changed in the way the Committee recommended, for Ministers to rely on the crime statistics to assert that crime is falling?

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his compliments, but I am not sure that that is quite what Sir Andrew said. What the Office for National
	Statistics has said is that crime may not be falling quite as fast as police recorded crime suggests, but the crime survey for England and Wales, which is a survey not a recording system, does corroborate the fact that crime is falling. That is the figure the Labour party relied on when in government and it is the figure the Government of any party are entitled to rely upon.
	On the substantive point that we need to improve the auditing of police recorded crime statistics in order to make them a more reliable source of data, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Norman Baker: May I, on behalf of the Home Office, thank my hon. Friend and his Committee for the serious work they have done? We will, of course, give a proper response in due course to his recommendations. Would he accept that some, but not all, of the issues he has raised are, fortunately, slightly historical in nature? We have taken action to discourage central targets. We have also taken action to ensure that the independent Office for National Statistics is responsible for crime statistics, and we asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary last June to carry out an audit of the quality of crime recording. So we are taking action at the Home Office.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Yes, this is historical, but I am afraid that makes all the more damning the fact that police recorded crime is still being misrecorded in this country. Yes, the Home Office has handed this over to the ONS and the UK Statistics Authority, and the Home Office has ceased to set its own targets, but the Committee does recommend that the Home Office, which collects the data and gives them to the ONS, has an obligation to ensure that those data are recorded correctly. We lament the fact that HMIC has not been doing regular audits. Where a regular audit was done in the Kent police there was an immediate increase in police recorded crime. We probably need to look forward to increases in certain categories of crime, as that would confirm that such crimes are now being recorded correctly. That should be regarded as a good thing, so long as we can corroborate that with the crime survey in England and Wales still showing a fall in crime. The Home Office has overall accountability to this House for the quality of police recorded crime statistics. So the Home Office, along with the Crime Statistics Advisory Committee, the UK Statistics Authority and the ONS, has a responsibility to ensure that the police recording of crime is improved, and overall the Home Office is accountable to this House for ensuring that the police recording of crime is of better quality than it is now.

Andy Slaughter: I commend the hon. Gentleman and the Committee on their work. I have long since stopped trusting police statistics; propaganda banners in the centre of Hammersmith tell me that my constituents are safer because there are 42 extra police, but when I go to the Mayor of London’s website I am told that there are 158 fewer police and police community support officers than there were at the time of the last general election. What his Committee said about how this situation
	“erodes public trust in the police and…the…confidence of frontline police officers”
	is absolutely right. However, we do need accurate statistics, as well as to address the ethics points he talked about, so what can be done to ensure that we have accurate statistics in the future?

Bernard Jenkin: There are three steps to take to ensure more accurate crime statistics. One is regular audit. The second is to abandon targets. Many police and crime commissioners have abandoned targets altogether, because they recognise that they have a distorting effect on behaviour and attitudes. The third is that the police themselves need to emphasise the core policing values of accountability, honesty and integrity so that police officers at desks recording crimes recognise that, above everything else, recording the crimes effectively is a microcosm of the honesty, integrity and accountability that they must carry throughout their entire policing profession. It is these values that have been subverted by the target culture. That is the responsibility of both parties over a long period—it is not a partisan point. Our key witness told me that the Metropolitan police is still full of target junkies. It will take a long time to change the culture of leadership throughout our police forces in England and Wales—this also applies to Scotland, although we have not inquired into Scotland—but it has to be done.

Julian Lewis: It is never easy to be a whistleblower, but I cannot imagine a much tougher environment to be a whistleblower in than the police service. What practical measures of protection does the Committee recommend to safeguard the interests of people such as my hon. Friend’s brave constituent PC Patrick in the future?

Bernard Jenkin: We recommend immunity from disciplinary proceedings while a whistleblowing process is under way. That is standard practice in the financial services industry, nuclear industry, aviation sector, transport sector and many other industries, and it should be so in the police as well. I am pleased to say that, in a letter sent to me by my hon. Friend the Minister, a number of possible options have been included. They are:
	“Anonymity for the whistleblower from the point at which the allegation is made…”sealed” investigations so that, for a set period, no-one under investigation knows that it is happening …immunity from disciplinary/misconduct proceedings… financial incentives for whistleblowers, for example a share of recovered criminal assets from the case…protection against vexatious or malicious allegations.”
	All those options would have made life very different for my constituent.

Kelvin Hopkins: As a member of the Select Committee, I was pleased to have taken part in the work on this first-class report. I congratulate the Chairman on his strong leadership in bringing forward the report and on his statement today. The issue of no-crime rates for rapes and sexual offences is a most serious matter. Although I fully support the recommendation for research, is the matter not so serious that the Government should act now to seek to ensure that all rapists are brought to justice and that women and indeed some men can feel safe from such attacks in future?

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the PASC and for his question. I refer to chart 3 on page 17 of the report, which shows a remarkable
	divergence in the average no-crime rate reported for rape incidents. It is important to understand that no constabulary sets a target for rape. That lesson has been learnt, but the culture of downgrading rapes to lesser offences is embedded in the culture of the police. Generations of police officers have learnt that it is a good thing to downgrade the importance of crimes to make the figures look better. The result is a 20% variation across forces in how often they downgrade a rape to a lesser offence. That shows that there must be a very wide divergence of practice across police forces, and it demonstrates why an investigation into this question is necessary, particularly for such a serious offence. I expect the same applies to many other offences, such as domestic violence and violence against women and some of the less fashionable offences that we have difficulty talking about.

Philip Hollobone: I declare an interest as a special constable with the British Transport police. In my brief career with the police, I have never come across any instance where a police officer has knowingly downgraded a crime. Nevertheless, I strongly commend the Chairman for his hard-hitting report, which pulls no punches and which is clearly an example of how Select Committees in this place should report and not be frightened of dealing with these difficult issues in a forthright way. So serious are the conclusions in the report that, if I were the Home Secretary, the matter would be right at the top of my in-tray. What indications has the Chairman been given by the Home Office about when the Home Secretary will come to the House to respond to the conclusions in his report? The conclusions are so serious that I believe they should be discussed at Cabinet level, and this House should be informed promptly of what the Government will do to ensure the integrity of the recording of crimes by our police forces, which is a hugely important issue for all our constituents.

Bernard Jenkin: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Sadly, I must tell him that there is not a single police officer on the streets or around the Palace who has expressed the least surprise about what we were told in evidence by PC Patrick and many other witnesses. They all knew that this was going on, and everybody has known that this has been going on in many police forces, possibly most police forces, for very many years. The fact that my hon. Friend has not been exposed to it is intriguing; I will say no more than that. Let me reassure him that I am immensely reassured that my hon. Friend the Minister is in the House today and has indeed participated in these proceedings. I have already had a meeting with the Home Secretary at which we have had a preliminary discussion about the report. My hon. Friend is tempting me to apply for a fuller debate on the report so that Ministers can give a fuller response. Perhaps that can happen after the Government have responded in full to our report.

Paul Flynn: Is not the most egregious example of the waste and futility of target setting what happened in the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime? In seeking to set three targets for reducing crime, reducing costs and improving morale, it decided
	to have targets of 20%, 20% and 20% in what was an obvious way of headline chasing. Is the Chairman shocked by what we heard in evidence to his Committee and to the Home Affairs Committee? Although the Met has men and women of integrity in it who are entirely free of any corruption and are entirely honourable, the surprise is that, going back to the murder of Daniel Morgan 27 years ago, there are elements in the Met that are institutionally corrupt.

Bernard Jenkin: Our recommendation is that MOPAC should abandon targets. If it has slogans, they should be aspirations, not targets. The hon. Gentleman, who is on the Committee and for whose work I am grateful, is right that there are aspects of this that raise very serious questions about the ethics and values of the leadership of the police, particularly the Metropolitan police.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on this matter. May I draw Members’ attention to paragraph 39 which says that
	“misrecording of sexual offences is deplorable, but especially so if this has been brought about by means of improperly persuading or pressurising victims into withdrawing or downgrading their report.”
	That particularly affects children.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.

Lindsay Roy: As a member of the PASC, may I, too, congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee on his effective leadership and tenacity in this inquiry? Will he explain to the House why the flaws in the recording system were not picked up through external inspection?

Bernard Jenkin: In our evidence, we heard that there was not enough internal or external inspection. When Kent police were specially audited a year or two ago, it turned out that there was substantial manipulation of crime statistics. Whether it was advertent or inadvertent, it was happening. The result has been a much cleaner bill of health for Kent. Regular audit and inspection is one of the things that must happen, and HMIC must make that a priority every year.

Edward Leigh: In Lincolnshire during this Parliament, we have had an absurd spat between the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner, which resulted in the chief constable being suspended for a time—not for anything operational, just some rubbish about political correctness. Meanwhile, while all this money and time wasting is going on I, speaking personally as an ordinary member of the public, have been a victim of crime twice in Lincolnshire and I have to say that the response of the police was completely underwhelming, with no follow-up and nobody caught. People are increasingly fed up with members of police forces, particularly at the top, who pay themselves quite well and seem to be enmeshed in empire building, political correctness and form filling. What we and the public want to get back to—this is why this report is so good—and what I want my hon. Friend to comment on, is old-fashioned community policing, with the police in our communities, the old bobby on the beat, walking
	around, knowing everyone, talking to people and not just sitting in their headquarters having these absurd spats—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sure that there must have been a question somewhere in that great rant, and I am sure that Mr Jenkin will be able to pick out an answer.

Bernard Jenkin: I am interested to note that Lincolnshire is one of the outliers in the table of the average no-crime rate for reported rape incidents that shows the downgrading of rape. As I look at the table, I cannot remember instantly whether that means it is very good or very bad—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) says that I should turn it upside down. The hankering after practical policing based on common sense outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) suggests that the police would be well advised to lead according to common-sense values and the values in the ethics code. If they do the right thing on the day according to those values, their leadership should back them.

Lindsay Hoyle: Last but certainly not least, I call Tim Loughton.

Tim Loughton: I, too, commend my hon. Friend and the PASC for this forthright and uncomfortable report. Is he aware that the figures are being distorted further by the police’s increasingly arbitrary use of police information notices? When an individual perceives that harassment has taken place, often devoid of a common-sense test of whether a complaint has substance or is vexatious, according to Sussex police, at least, there is no need for them to follow their own guidance as it is only guidance. Even more worryingly, complaints about comments made in this House by hon. Members can be registered as a hate incident by police despite our parliamentary privilege.

Bernard Jenkin: The case that ended up in court as a result of the incident concerning my hon. Friend—

Tim Loughton: Not in court.

Bernard Jenkin: It did not finish up in court—that was the point, wasn’t it? It was privileged. I thought the incident was bizarre and showed an extraordinary lack of understanding of where the police sit in the constitutional framework of this country. It seemed to me to lack common sense and I agree with my hon. Friend.
	I should say for the record that Cleveland, Surrey and Lincolnshire had a far higher no-crime rate than the national average when it comes to reported rapes. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough should be asking his police why they record rape and then downgrade it so much more often than the vast majority of constabularies.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Easter Adjournment

Lindsay Hoyle: I remind Members that we will follow the usual procedure of speaking for about 10 to 15 minutes.

David Amess: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
	I wish to raise a number of issues before the Easter Adjournment and I will try to get through them as quickly as possible so that the 16 Members who wish to speak all have equal time.
	I was on the Select Committee on Health for 10 years and am still very interested in a number of health issues. One is a genetic condition that causes high concentrations of cholesterol in the blood and therefore significantly increases the risk of developing coronary heart disease from a young age. It is known as FH, or familial hypercholesterolaemia, and affects one in 500 people but only 15% have been formally identified or treated. However, it is possible to make improvements to this rate and I am asking the Deputy Leader of the House to suggest that, as the cardiovascular disease outcomes strategy for England includes an aspiration to diagnose and treat 50% of causes of FH, the Health Department considers establishing a national programme for FH that features a dedicated network of health care professionals, nurses to roll out the cascade screening process and a UK-wide patient register and database.
	Melanoma cancer is something of which all Members of Parliament are only too aware. I recently had the privilege of meeting Gill Nuttall, who founded the charity Melanoma UK. It is the most serious form of skin cancer and each year more than 2,000 people in the UK die from the disease. It disproportionately affects young people and patients are often of working age with young families. It is absolutely devastating. The present treatment is dacarbazine, but that does not have a high survival benefit so I am asking the Deputy Leader of the House to pass on to the relevant Department the fact that the drug ipilimumab can be a life-saving treatment for some patients, whose survival is inhibited by late access to the treatment. I am advised that on 23 April the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence’s appraisal committee will hold its second meeting to give a recommendation about that drug and I hope that it is approved.
	I am the chairman of the all-party group on hepatology and we recently produced what I shall brazenly call an excellent report into liver disease, called “Liver Disease: Today’s Complacency, Tomorrow’s Catastrophe”. It is about improving outcomes in liver disease and is a wake-up call to the nation. I do not know how many people realise that liver disease is the fifth greatest cause of death in the UK and that about 11,000 people die each year as a result of it. The report made many recommendations and I hope that the Government, the NHS and Public Health England will work together to
	create a national approach to preventing fatalities from liver disease. A meeting with the Minister responsible for public health would also be extremely useful.
	The drug treatment strategy interests us all. National guidance from the Department of Health and NICE clearly recommends that all patients treated for opiate addiction should receive a comprehensive assessment and that the treatment provided should be tailored to their needs, yet according to the results of the largest survey ever carried out into drug addiction across 10 European countries, published in 2012, treatment in the UK might often not be optimised to the individual patient’s obvious needs. In this country we have one of the highest levels of heroin addiction, so I hope that the Department of Health will work to implement the NICE technology appraisal on drug treatment options, TA114, and put a monitoring system in place to ensure that every patient is assessed and offered the safest and best treatment to enable them to recover.
	Thalidomide used to be mentioned regularly in the House, but recently I was shocked to learn that justice has still not been served after all these years. Most Members of Parliament might still have one or two thalidomide victims in their constituencies, but in cases in which the pharmaceutical company Grünenthal was not the licensee, thalidomide victims did not receive a penny from either the German Government or the manufacturers. In other European countries where thalidomide was marketed the victims have received financial assistance from Grünenthal and the German Government. I am asking our Government to turn exploratory talks into formal negotiations to assist with funding the health needs of those who suffer from the effects of thalidomide. Italian, Swedish and Spanish MPs are asking their Governments to do likewise. I hope that our Government will take the matter seriously.
	I am the chairman of the all-party group on maternity and I was totally unaware of tongue-tie in breastfeeding. As we all know, if mothers can do it breastfeeding is the best possible way to nurture children, but tongue-tie is very upsetting for new mothers. The diagnosis is not fully recognised, but when it is discovered early on, treatment is usually quick and straightforward. I am advised that specialists can perform a simple snip of the tie with scissors, often without even an anaesthetic. The National Childbirth Trust has received communications from many mothers describing their experience of tongue-tie, and it seems to be an issue that needs to be addressed. It is concerned that diagnosis of tongue-tie can sometimes take weeks or months, which is very upsetting for a new mother. One mother says:
	“Both my children were tongue tied and in both cases the professionals failed to identify it. Due to unacceptable waiting times I felt I had no option but to pay for private tongue tie division. I went to hell and back on my feeding journeys because of tongue tie.”
	This is something that we need to improve.
	I remember debates in the House many years ago on gender selection abortion when I was reassured by the Minister that that would not happen. Unfortunately, 4,700 girls are missing in the UK due to sex-selection abortion, which is disgraceful. A growing body of anecdotal evidence proves that gender abortions are taking place in this country despite the assurances many years ago
	that that would not happen. There is a need to clarify the law on sex selection. The Department of Health interprets the law as saying that sex selection abortion is illegal. The head of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service says the opposite. The Abortion Act 1967 requires two doctors to form the opinion in good faith that continuing with the pregnancy risks damaging the mother’s mental or physical health. In a situation where a woman might suffer abuse as the result of bearing a girl, as has unfortunately been the case in some minority communities, it is quite conceivable that sex selection abortion would meet the Act’s criteria. The Department of Health proposes non-binding guidance to solve this problem, but that is not good enough. I want the Secretary of State for Health to consider bringing forward regulations under the powers conferred on him by section 2 of the Abortion Act to make gender abortion explicitly illegal, as we were told many years ago that it was.
	Assisted dying regularly rears its head, perhaps not in this Chamber but in the other place. I ask only that when the matter is raised again there will be a genuine free vote on it in the House. The Prime Minister touched on the issue of abortion yesterday, but I hope that there will be a genuine free vote on euthanasia.
	More than a month ago in Westminster Hall, I raised my grave concerns about mental health services in south-east Essex. I told the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), that I was totally unhappy with past and present management, and he promised me a meeting. A month has gone by. I am ready, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will ensure that his hon. Friend will quickly make arrangements for me to have the meeting with him, because the complaints are endless.
	I am pleased that we are to reform the probation service. I have been critical of the probation service in Essex, so I am horrified to learn that its chief executive and his staff are thinking of reinventing themselves under the auspices of a mutual. There is no point changing the probation service unless it is under new management.
	I was privileged to be part of a delegation to Saudi Arabia, and we are to have a meeting with the Foreign Office Minister later this afternoon. The development of our relations with Saudi Arabia is interesting. It has been a reliable ally of ours for more than 100 years, but we might be missing out on some trade opportunities. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will continue to nurture good relations with Saudi Arabia.
	I am the chairman of the all-party British-Maldives parliamentary group, and after some controversy over the election, at long last we have a settled President. I very much hope that we will facilitate a double taxation treaty and a bilateral investment treaty, reduce the air passenger duty and make student visa applications more accessible for young talented students from the Maldives to travel here to study at our excellent academic institutions. We could certainly do more to encourage business links between our two countries—after all, it was a British protectorate. The British high commissioner, John Rankin, has agreed to visit the global green city project, a fantastic project that aims to create a safe, serene and spacious environment with huge economic potential for the citizens of the Maldives. I want British businesses to enjoy some of the business opportunities there.
	I recently became chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for democracy in Bahrain. I did not initially realise that it was a controversial all-party group, and I simply say that I hope that the Government are looking seriously at the further complaints about torture.
	Quilliam is an organisation that deals with online extremism. Last month, I was reunited with a former constituent, Maajid Nawaz, whom I last saw when I visited him in an Egyptian prison some 10 years ago. He has been on an incredible journey. Having been a former member of an Islamist revolutionary group, and spending five years in a prison in Cairo, which was a little like “Midnight Express”, he then had a complete change of heart, transformed his life and started the anti-extremism organisation Quilliam.
	Quilliam has just finished the most comprehensive report to date on online extremism, and it will be published shortly. The issue was raised in the counter-extremism taskforce set up after the Woolwich attack, so it is important to consider it carefully. Quilliam’s research has found that negative measures of dealing with online extremism, such as blocking or censoring, which have previously been suggested, would be both ineffective and counter-productive. It instead identifies seven other ways that action should be taken to counter online extremism, including the promotion of positive measures, such as developing counter-extremist content and popularising online initiatives that fight against extremism, as they are much more effective in challenging extremist ideologies; and the establishment of a central body that offers seed funding and training for grassroots online counter-extremism initiatives. When we went to Saudi Arabia, we visited a facility that tries to deradicalise people. I hope that all hon. Members will look at the views of Quilliam if they have the chance.
	My constituent went to Westcliff high school for boys, and I am delighted to say that Westcliff high school for girls has been judged to be the second best school in the country, and it is a state school.
	In March, I visited Seetec and met some of the staff of one of the UK’s major providers of training and employment services. It does a wonderful job. It has been in existence for 30 years, and I congratulate it on all that it has done.
	Like many people, I am not very pleased with the work of spy cars, and I support the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in his endeavours to have them scrapped.
	I am pleased with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in the Budget for the wine and spirits industry. However, wine duty has already increased by 54% since the escalator was introduced in 2008, and it has now been increased by another 2.4% in line with RPI inflation. That will harm the UK, so I hope that next year the Chancellor will have a look at that duty.
	My final subject is puppy farming. I know that there is bid before the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on the issue, and in June, there will be a mass gathering of people who feel very angry about puppy farming. I urge the Government to tighten up the legislation on the welfare conditions required to allow the sale of puppies and kittens, and to consider a total ban on their sale in pet shops where the mother is not present.
	I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and everyone who supports us in this House and outside, a very happy Easter.

Siobhain McDonagh: Last month I had an Adjournment debate about the ongoing threat to the future of my local general hospital, St Helier. A huge banner covering the front of the hospital that said, “Coming soon—We’re spending £219 million on a major development of St Helier hospital”, had just been taken down. The £219 million had been on the table since early 2010, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) announced that the 1930s-built hospital would be completely renovated, with new wards, single rooms to cut down on infections, and improved patient privacy, as well as numerous other improvements to bring it into the 21st century. Initially, the scheme was backed by the coalition, but it was not long before St Helier’s future was put at risk.
	In 2011, the local NHS said that the Government had told it to
	“deliver £370m savings each year…around 24% in their costs.”
	A new body called Better Services Better Value was set up to close accident and emergency and maternity units across south-west London and Surrey. Predictably, BSBV recommended that St Helier should be one of the losers and that we should also lose our intensive care unit, paediatric centre, renal unit, and 390 in-patient beds. But thankfully, post-Lewisham, the local Save St Helier campaigners fought off the worst of these plans, largely thanks to the backing of doctors in Surrey, where Epsom hospital was also threatened. Two weeks ago, I handed in a petition to save St Helier that had been signed by more than 13,000 of my constituents. I was proud to stand alongside campaigners like Sally Kenny, who set up the lower Morden Save St Helier campaign; Mary Curtin, who for many years has run the local lunch club, Friends in St Helier; Stan Anderson, a lower Morden resident and local councillor who has fought tirelessly to keep St Helier open; and Stephen Alambritis, the leader of Merton council, who has done all he can to help. Thanks to them and all the other Save St Helier campaigners, BSBV has been wound down and the immediate plans to close services at St Helier have been shelved.
	However, the threat still hangs over us. The reason I am here to speak about this again is that since last month there have been further developments. First, the local NHS has voted to bring in a new strategic commissioning group that will be led by one of the people at the forefront of the plans to shut services at St Helier, Dr Howard Freeman, who is also the chair of Merton’s clinical commissioning group. Many of us are concerned that St Helier will now see the level of services that had been commissioned from it decrease, which would seriously undermine the viability of our hospital. That is consistent with a letter from NHS England which says that not going ahead with the closure of services at St Helier and Epsom hospitals
	“carries significant and unacceptable risk, both financially and clinically”
	and calls for “a coherent strategic plan”. Interestingly, it also points out the obvious—that people will interpret this approach as
	“planning for clinical and financial failure in some of its providers.”
	That is true. We are all worried that NHS England will deliberately plan for hospitals such as St Helier and Epsom to fail. Without the £219 million renovation,
	and without getting the full range of services commissioned from the local CCGs, they will not be allowed to become foundation trusts. They will wither, and the forces lined up against St Helier will get the outcome they originally wanted—the closure of A and E, maternity, and numerous other services. It might not happen straight away, but slowly and surely, perhaps within two or three years, we will find that we no longer have the hospital we now enjoy.
	It makes matters worse that in the past month we have seen the spectacle of local Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs voting for clause 119 of the Care Bill. Everyone who supports the Save St Helier campaign is furious about that. Whatever the merits or otherwise of clause 119, campaigners believe it is nothing more than an attempt to thwart campaigns like theirs as revenge for the success of campaigners in Lewisham and a way of closing hospitals that are well run and have wide support. Last week, Merton council passed a motion condemning the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) for betraying Merton residents when he voted for clause 119. Since then, the leader of Merton Conservatives, Councillor Oonagh Moulton, has angered campaigners even more by proclaiming in the local Wimbledon Guardian:
	“St Helier Hospital has been saved”.
	Given the track record of people like Dr Freeman, I do hope those words do not come back to haunt her.
	The immediate threat may have been fought off, but just as secret plans were drawn up to close St Helier back in 1996, I am sure that its enemies are planning for it to fail even as we speak. I do not believe that this Government are committed to St Helier. The £219 million was withdrawn; the strategic commissioning body has been set up; clause 119 has been passed; savings have to be made; and the local NHS has been making plans to fail. Slowly but surely, St Helier is being strangled. Our best hopes lie with campaigners like Sally, Mary, Stan, and Merton’s councillors. We need to win, because if St Helier loses its A and E, 200,000 people will face longer journeys in an emergency, neighbouring A and Es will struggle with the extra workload, and millions will suffer.
	I ask the Minister to say today that he agrees with the Save St Helier campaign, that he will instruct our local NHS to spend the £219 million, that it must not reduce the work it commissions from St Helier, and that it must respect the people of lower Morden and St Helier who depend on our hospital.
	I would like to raise some other NHS concerns. In the transfer from primary care trusts to CCGs to NHS England, two schemes to provide new GP surgeries in my constituency have stalled. First, there is Colliers Wood and Lavender Fields surgery, a GP practice based on two sites that are more than 1 mile apart and in desperate need of updating. The practice has found it very difficult to find alternative accommodation in such a built-up urban area. A couple of years ago, it identified a site on the first floor above the local library—a building owned by a company called Crown Properties. A price was negotiated, heads of terms were agreed, and a lot of the preparation work began. The local pharmacist had already moved into a building nearby in preparation for the new surgery. However, it now
	transpires that somewhere in the transfer from PCTs to CCGs to NHS England, the project fell off the radar. In the meantime, Crown Properties has gone into receivership, and its receivers, Knight Frank, are backing away from the deal. They have applied for a change of use that would turn the offices into flats rather than a GP surgery, thereby jeopardising the prospect of the surgery moving. I would welcome the assistance of the Minister to find out where the scheme is and to help me secure a meeting with the receivers to discuss how much this surgery is needed by people who live locally.
	Secondly, for the past seven years we have had the prospect of a new location for Rowans surgery on the former Rowans school site. In 2007, as part of a section 106 agreement on a new residential development, it was agreed that a new surgery would be built and would have a reduced rent for six years. When the property market slowed in the recession, the deal was put on hold. Now this long-standing scheme continues to await approval from the new NHS England. We are desperate to hear from NHS England as to the hopes for a new surgery. This surgery has some of the worst problems in the constituency as regards patients obtaining appointments, and more GPs and more space are desperately needed.
	Finally, I would like to mention a bugbear of mine as a constituency MP—the practice of GP surgeries in charging MPs for letters about their constituents. I would be interested to hear other Members’ comments about this. Like all MPs in the House, I hold a weekly advice surgery. I often see my job as making sure that people present their cases for housing or other benefits in the best possible light, and that sometimes includes obtaining medical information to support those cases. I find it difficult to understand, morally, that a GP practice could want to charge an MP £40 for a letter on behalf of a child who is disabled or an elderly person who is vulnerable. I assure Members that this is perfectly legal. It is part of GPs’ contracts and they can do it, but it is wrong that Members should be frustrated by these charges in their attempts to support their most vulnerable constituents. The people concerned are often the least able to meet the charges and the ones who most need help and support.
	I would be grateful for any assistance from the Minister and his colleagues in the Government in raising this issue. Undertaking casework is a vital part of the MP’s role and we should be allowed to contact GPs, whose primary function, I thought, was to assist their patients in an holistic sense, rather than just in the medical sense. We all know that housing and support from social services can assist people’s health as much as individual medical care. I ask for the support of all Members in respect of those charges.

John Randall: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess). I have always regarded these recess Adjournment debates as one of the highlights of the parliamentary Session. They give us all an opportunity to raise a variety of issues, perhaps ones that would not merit the length of an Adjournment debate in the Chamber or Westminster Hall, but which are matters that we care deeply about.
	Listening to my hon. Friend as he went from subject to subject, as I shall probably do, I was reminded that the spring sunshine had brought out some butterflies, which many colleagues may have spotted. Yesterday I saw the first orange tip butterfly of the year, which is always a highlight for me as it is one of the marks of spring arriving. I saw it in a most unusual place—on the grass verge by Hanger lane on the A40, not exactly the rural idyll that one might associate it with. I thought to myself, “Shall I be like that butterfly as I flit from subject to subject, gently sipping from the flowers of the various issues?” I leave it to hon. Members to decide whether they see me as a butterfly, gently floating.
	On the subject of the wildlife world, I should like to raise two important matters that impinge on the European Union. The first concerns vultures, which I have always been very fond of. That predates my time in the Whips Office by a long way. Vultures have had a tough time both in the Indian subcontinent and in Africa, mainly as a result of a drug called diclophenac, which is a powerful anti-inflammatory used in veterinary treatment. Unfortunately, one of the side-effects is that it is a lethal poison to vultures. Animals in Africa or the subcontinent that have been treated with the drug die and as the vultures feed on the carcases containing the drug, they are killed. The vulture populations in both areas have almost been wiped out.
	In India, Pakistan and Nepal, diclophenac was used regularly in the 1920s. A lot of work has been done on the subcontinent and the drug has largely been banned. I was distressed to read the other day that the EU has authorised its use on domestic animals in Italy and Spain, where 80% of European vultures live. This is a backward move and sends a poor message to countries in Africa, which we are trying to persuade to ban the use of the drug. Four species of vulture are commonly found in Europe, none of which has brilliant populations and some of which are very threatened, chiefly the bearded vulture, with which I feel a certain empathy. We need to be aware of the problem. I hope the Government will raise the issue at various EU opportunities.
	While the Government are on the subject, they should raise another matter. One of the EU states, Malta, has a derogation to allow spring hunting and the shooting of birds. This badly affects turtledoves, which are in decline all over Europe and especially in Britain, and quail. All the migratory birds that we are beginning to see coming into the country face a battery from hunters in Malta. It is time the practice was looked at. I say to the Maltese people that theirs is one country in Europe that I have no interest in visiting while the practice continues. Despite their heroics in the second world war—I have always been a great admirer of the George Cross island—such behaviour is no longer acceptable in the 21st century.
	We must be careful not just to point out what is wrong abroad. We have problems here. I am pleased to support wildlife trusts in their campaign to save our grasslands, which are rapidly disappearing, and support wide biodiversity. I was lucky a couple of weeks ago to visit a commercial farm in Leicestershire called the Allerton project, which is run by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust. I was impressed by the ability to show how a farm can be commercial, but also aware of its conservation and wildlife responsibilities. I recommend to any Member who has an interest and to officials of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
	who I know go there, to visit the project and look closely at it as it is doing very good work. I was shown around by Professor Chris Stoate, who impressed me with his knowledge and his love of the subject.
	In the past Session I have been rather busy as a member of the Joint Committee looking at the modern slavery Bill that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has, with a great deal of passion, brought into being. We reported only a couple of days ago. It is going to be a very important piece of work. I hope the Home Office will study our recommendations seriously. It is an opportunity for the House and the country to be a world leader in combating a modern-day abomination, yet sadly something that most people do not know about. I urge every right hon. and hon. Member at any opportunity, when they are speaking to constituents or organisations, to raise the subject, because until the public know that it is happening in their midst, in their streets and in their towns, we will not get as much action as we would like.
	I have been lucky enough, if one can use that expression, to talk to victims—the men and women who have been slaves in the modern era. Anyone who speaks to such victims will find that their lives change and they are not able to rest easy until they have done something to try to help. On that subject, I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 1257. Having not been able to sign early-day motions, I have found that I can exist in life without them and I am not a great fan of them, but I did notice this early-day motion on the 175th anniversary of Anti-Slavery International on 17 April 2014. Despite us all thinking that slavery was abolished 200 years ago or more, there were people who recognised that it still existed. That work, 175 years on, is still extremely important and the organisation should be commended.
	Having raised a rather grim subject, I now want to be positive: the sun is coming out, so I think my sunny disposition should start shining through. Earlier this week, I attended the reopening of Uxbridge central library in the London borough of Hillingdon. I can still clearly remember getting my first book out of the old Uxbridge library with a great deal of excitement about 50 years ago. Books have given me a great deal of pleasure over the years and it distresses me whenever I hear that libraries in many areas have suffered cuts and generally seem to be going slightly out of fashion.
	I am old enough to remember—everybody present is much younger than me—when Boots the Chemist had a lending library. When it finished, the books were sold off and I still have some at home. Those interested in nostalgia might like to know that they have a little green shield-shaped sticker on them.
	I want to be as unpartisan as possible, but the London borough of Hillingdon has been brilliant. It has put the residents first and it is a pleasure not just to be a resident of the borough, but to be its Member of Parliament, because I experience relatively few problems with my local authority. I know that that is not always the case for MPs, even when their local authority is run by their own party, but mine is exemplary. Hillingdon is a little hidden treasure on the west side of London, although it is still in Middlesex, of course.
	The library reopened on Monday. The London borough of Hillingdon has spent £10 million on all 17 borough libraries and they are vibrant. New libraries with new
	ideas are being opened. Uxbridge library has six floors, a ground floor café and an atrium for art exhibitions, drama and dance. I was particularly pleased that it was opened not just by Councillor Ray Puddifoot, who is the local authority leader, but by a wonderful gentleman called Philip Colehan, who is 92 and used to be the borough librarian. In 1964, he opened 10 libraries and his passion for public libraries and the services they provide meant that he could see back in those days—before anyone had even come up with the idea of a one-stop shop—the opportunities a library can give. It can be a community hub.
	If Members pop down to the end of either the Metropolitan or the Piccadilly line—Uxbridge is well served by both—they should have a look at the library. They could compare it with their own public libraries and local authorities and see that Hillingdon has got it absolutely spot on. Our libraries are able not just to exist but to flourish.
	Given that it is coming up to the Easter break, the public and the press will all say that we are going to be off on a long holiday, but we know that we are going to be very busy with all the constituency stuff we do. I hope colleagues will take a little time off. If anybody is thinking of taking a break, I will give a little plug to Northern Ireland, which I visited last weekend. I went to watch my rugby team, Saracens, beat Ulster. According to the Ulster fans it was a controversial victory, but that is because they lost.
	The hospitality and atmosphere were wonderful. Londonderry/Derry is a very interesting city and it was a pleasure to visit it. The countryside is wonderful, as are the Giant’s Causeway and the Bushmills distillery. I am now on the wagon, but the people there were absolutely wonderful. I recommend a visit.
	I like a bit of continuity, so I will end by noting that in our previous pre-Adjournment debate just before Christmas, I cheekily mentioned what was on my Christmas present list. Mrs Randall read Hansard, as she does every day, and I was lucky enough to receive a bat detector. All I can say is that I am looking forward to getting that bat detector out in the next few days and using its radar and locator. Perhaps I will pop down to where HS2 is planned to go through the borough of Hillingdon. There are some very interesting bats there and I want to hear and see them for myself so that I will be able to mention them in a debate when we return.
	Finally, I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the other Deputy Speakers, Mr Speaker, all right hon. and hon. Members and, in particular, all those people who serve us so well in the House a happy and restful Easter—and don’t overdo it on the eggs!

Gareth Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow my parliamentary neighbour, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall). I have always thought that he wears the trauma of living next door to the greatest constituency in the UK—that of Harrow West—extremely lightly, given that he will never have the chance to represent it.
	I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s praise for wildlife trusts, and in so doing I would like to take this opportunity, as president of the London Green Belt Council, to
	praise the contribution of so many residents’ associations across London that defend the green belt and green open spaces in London with great passion and commitment. I am thinking in particular of those in the London borough of Harrow, such as the Harrow Hill trust, the Pinner association, the Headstone residents’ association and the Hatch End association. I pay tribute to their work.
	The right hon. Gentleman and I also share an interest in what happens at RAF Northolt. I gently ask the Deputy Leader of the House to ensure that, in future, whenever the Ministry of Defence consults on any plans to change the number of flights in and out of RAF Northolt, it will consult Harrow and Ealing councils as well as Hillingdon council and Hillingdon Members of Parliament. There is substantial concern in my constituency about the significant uplift in the number of flights the MOD is going to allow into RAF Northolt and about the lack of discussion with Harrow MPs and the local council.
	I also want to ask the Deputy Leader of the House for his assistance on the issue of policing. The latest figures from the Mayor of London’s office show that, in January, Harrow had 344 police officers and just 38 police community support officers—a total of 382 officers. In March 2010, however, Harrow had a total of 519 police officers, made up of 403 police constables, sergeants and others, and 116 PCSOs. Harrow has therefore seen a 27% fall in the number of police officers since the general election—part of the 3,000 or so police officers axed from the London streets since 2010.
	I understand that London has 30,036 police officers, despite the Mayor of London’s promise that he would maintain police numbers at or about 32,000. Indeed, the Deputy Mayor for policing, Stephen Greenhalgh, said last year that it would be a “doomsday scenario” for policing in London if the number dropped below 31,000, but that is what has happened. Over the same period since the general election, the Metropolitan police has lost almost 2,300 PCSOs, which is a 50% cut since 2010. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House is willing to try to secure from the Home Office a timeline for when Harrow will again have the same complement of police officers, including PCSOs, as we had back in March 2010. In particular, my constituents are concerned that there are not enough police officers in our part of Harrow. Despite the Mayor’s promises, there does not yet appear to be any sense of when we will get back to the numbers we once had.
	The last issue I want to raise relates to one of the responsibilities of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I take this opportunity to congratulate the new Secretary of State, who also has responsibility for equality, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), on his appointment. I hope that he will take a particular interest in the implementation of section 27 of the Communications Act 2003, and the extent to which Ofcom is meeting its responsibilities for promoting equality of opportunity among those employed by providers of television and radio services.
	One of Ofcom’s predecessors, the Independent Television Commission, required those it licensed to carry out equality monitoring. The ITC published data in tables every year, along with a critique and any other action that companies were taking on equality. However, Ofcom no longer publishes any such data. Although it has a
	duty to encourage equality of opportunity in the arts, it is not using the key available tool—public scrutiny—to encourage improvement. Indeed, Ofcom has resisted—sadly, successfully—freedom of information requests to release the data.
	The House should be concerned, because surely our TV programmes and the organisations funded by Arts Council England should, in relation to those they employ on screen and on stage, reflect the very diverse nature of the communities that many hon. Members represent. I have received a number of representations from communities and from actors from particular ethnic minority backgrounds, who do not feel that they receive appropriate coverage or access to key media, particularly TV and theatre. For example, I rarely see Tamil actors and actresses on our TV screens, which is disappointing given the size of the Tamil community, particularly in my constituency. British east Asians are the third largest minority ethnic group in Britain today, but that is simply not reflected on our screens and stages.
	To provide more evidence of that point, in nearly 30 years, “EastEnders” has had only one regular east Asian character, a young female DVD seller who lasted just six months. Given that the east end of London remains one of our most ethnically diverse areas, it is a little odd that Albert square has not had so much as even the proverbial cliché of a Chinese takeaway. “Coronation Street” also has a disappointing record. It waited until 2011 before it had an east Asian character, who lasted just four months. Hospital dramas such as “Casualty”, “Doctors” and “Holby City” are similarly disappointing. Given the number of east Asians working in our hospitals, including in senior roles, that is somewhat at odds with the reality of the very diverse work force in the NHS. Actors have told me that they worry that any east Asian actor who is unable or unwilling to embody a stereotype will simply be unable to build any kind of career, given the lack of opportunity to play appropriate and non-stereotypical roles.
	Figures suggest that the number of black and ethnic minority staff in companies receiving Arts Council England funding is dropping. I therefore hope that the new Secretary of State might, in addition to all his other duties, encourage Ofcom and Arts Council England to take a greater interest in equality monitoring. I want what I watch on TV, in films and on stage to reflect the community I live in, and surely that is not an unreasonable ask. Sadly, it is now far from clear whether Ofcom is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Communications Act. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House is willing to take my plea for a little more action from Ofcom to the new Secretary of State, and to deliver a suitable response in the usual way.

Bob Russell: I have a cunning plan to get potholed streets in Colchester filled in: I will invite the organisers of the Tour de France to hold one of the stages of this great cycling event in Colchester, which, created in 49 AD, was Britain’s first city and the first capital of Roman Britain. That would guarantee that the potholes in Colchester—wilfully neglected by Essex county council, by contrast with other parts of Essex—are attended to, at least on the route taken by some 200 of the world’s leading racing cyclists.
	I know that that is true because regional television this week featured the part of rural Essex to which the Tour de France is going this year. Every inch, every foot, every yard, every furlong of rural road that the cyclists will speed along—probably without noticing the wonderful scenic beauty of the Essex countryside—has been surveyed for potholes. By the day of the race, every pothole will have been filled in, even those that Essex county council highways department would elsewhere deem to be of insufficient depth to need filling. The county council clearly considers that cyclists from around the world are worthy of greater attention and safety consideration than the residents of Essex whose council tax will go towards the cost of making the Tour de France route safe. It would not look good if professional cyclists topple from their machines because of an Essex pothole.
	Talking of looking good, some say that the picturesque village of Finchingfield is the most attractive village in Essex. It is assumed that the world’s media will regard it as a good place to photograph and film cyclists speeding through. It is not a question of filling in potholes there—oh no—because the patchwork quilt appearance of the road surface might spoil the photographs, so at great expense the whole road has been resurfaced to ensure the kind of pristine surface that is rare in most of Essex. If I can get the Tour de France to come to Colchester, it would ensure that our potholes were filled in. I am sure that my constituents could design a route to maximise the number of roads and potholes to be attended to in their area. For example, on the Monkwick estate, I would nominate a route that included Queen Elizabeth way, Prince Philip road, Prince Charles road and Coronation avenue.
	Behind my mockery, there is a serious point—namely, the performance, or lack of performance, of highway maintenance in Colchester under the auspices of Essex county council. I raised that at Communities and Local Government questions on Monday, when I got an encouraging response from the Secretary of State. Like me, he is an Essex MP, and thus fully aware of the shortcomings of county hall at Chelmsford, where favouritism rules.
	Until a few years ago, Colchester borough council was responsible for highways maintenance and street lighting, but then the county council grabbed the work. The result is that our roads and pavements are the worst that I have ever known, and the county switches off our street lights at midnight. Although there is a case for tackling light pollution, most of my constituents do not want a total black-out. I have tried to get a meeting with the cabinet member responsible, but he will not reply to my letters. Indeed, he is on record as saying that when he gets a letter he disapproves of, he throws it in the bin. That is democratic accountability in Conservative-run Essex county council.
	Complaints about highways maintenance make it the biggest local issue that residents currently raise with me. When Colchester borough council looked after highways, pavements and street lights, complaints were few and far between. It all changed and got worse when Essex county council took over, and it has got even worse—much worse—during the past two years, following the county council’s decision not to continue with nine contracts covering different parts of Essex, but to lump them together in a single contract worth £3 billion over
	10 years from 1 April 2012. That contract has been awarded to national company Ringway Jacobs, whose headquarters is in Sussex.
	While the Government and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government promote localism, which is a concept that I support, Essex county council has centralised highways to a devastatingly negative degree. In the good old days, when Colchester borough council’s highways depot was opposite where I live, potholed roads and damaged pavements would be attended to in a matter of days; it is now months—if you are lucky. If we are serious about localism, let us return to how it used to be, with the local council using local people with local knowledge, people with pride and a personal commitment to the area, to undertake that important work.
	I have personally reported five times to Essex county council’s highways department the dangerous condition of the pavement outside my constituency office. It is a narrow pavement to a through-traffic route used by a large number of vehicles, many of them travelling too fast for the conditions. My office has witnessed, via CCTV cameras, four occasions when youngsters on mini-scooters have tumbled after hitting a pothole. Fortunately, each youngster fell forward. My concern is that on another occasion a youngster might topple into the road and under the wheels of a passing vehicle. On two occasions I was in my office when a youngster toppled from their scooter with the resultant tears. On one occasion I administered first aid to a three-year-old boy’s bleeding knee. I have reported the dangerous pavement five times. Earlier this year, I managed to get two people from the highways department to visit. The result? Nothing. My fifth letter, subsequent to their visit and following a further incident involving a little four-year-old girl, was acknowledged but, weeks later, the potholed pavement still needs attention.
	Having described Essex county council’s appalling highways record, I will now draw attention to another matter: the way in which the county council engages with the 16 MPs who represent constituencies in the administrative county of Essex. I am the only MP who is not a Conservative, which clearly rankles at county hall. On 21 February, I received a letter from the council’s chief executive that was headed: “Improving our correspondence and communications with Essex MPs”. The letter referred to
	“the recent Essex MP quarterly meeting”.
	That surprised me because I had no knowledge of quarterly meetings with Essex MPs. I submitted a freedom of information request to the chief executive. In due course, albeit later than the time specified in the Freedom of Information Act, I received a response from the person in charge of the incredibly named “your right to know” office. I am not making it up; that is what the office is called. It appears, however, that the right to know does not necessarily apply to the MP for Colchester. In the reply sent to my office on Monday, in response to my eight questions of 25 February, reference was made to
	“quarterly meetings between Essex County Council Cabinet Members and Essex Conservative MPs.”
	I note that the letter I received from the council’s chief executive made no mention of any party political affiliation and simply stated “Essex MPs,” of which I am one, albeit the only non-Conservative MP in Essex.
	I have no problem with Essex Tory councillors having meetings with Essex Tory MPs. That is not the issue; the issue is that what are purported to be occasions for the county council to engage with the county’s MPs have deliberately excluded an MP from another party, yet the council tax payers of Essex are footing the bill and council officers are being sent to what are clearly party political meetings. In cobbling together a response, county hall cannot seem to give a consistent line to justify that arrangement. Using council officers, who in accordance with the local government code of conduct should be politically neutral, is wrong. Even though the cost to the public purse represents only a fraction of the £500,000 blown by the council’s former leader, Lord Hanningfield, on his political advancement within the Conservative party, it should not happen. I trust that the district auditor will investigate.
	The FOI response states that “quarterly” meetings with Essex Tory MPs commenced on 17 October 2012. There were only three meetings in 2013, on 16 April, 4 June and 3 September, and there has seemingly been just one meeting so far this year, on 14 January. The FOI response tells me that
	“the meetings are informal and not minuted”.
	But that does not accord with the chief executive’s letter of 21 February, in which she refers to
	“the recent Essex MP quarterly meeting when a number of concerns were raised”.
	I assume that was the January meeting. She goes on to detail how such concerns will be addressed in future. After detailing action points, she tells MPs:
	“I would like to invite you to provide feedback on these improvements which can be discussed at future Essex MP quarterly meetings.
	Your concerns are recognised and I hope our intended actions assure you of our commitment to improve the current service we offer MPs.”

John Randall: I am distressed to hear of my hon. Friend’s situation, but I have thought of a practical solution. If he joined the Conservative party, he might be able to get in on the meetings.

Bob Russell: My right hon. Friend has a reputation for being a bit of a joker, but on this occasion, although some of my Labour opponents in Colchester feel that I have become a closet Tory, I am light years away from being a Tory of any sort, as my speech has indicated.
	Having been rumbled, it will be interesting to see whether Essex county council will continue its policy of politicising its dealings with MPs in the administrative county of Essex. Post-Lord Hanningfield, I hope that what I have disclosed today will warrant investigation by the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Local Government Association and the district auditor.
	I join colleagues in thanking all who work on the parliamentary estate. Their dedication to assisting Members is greatly appreciated. They do so much for us.

Meg Hillier: I shall talk about the future of the Co-operative Group. I am proud to be a Labour and Co-operative MP.
	We have seen a lot of turmoil in the Co-operative Group recently, and the resignation of former chief executive Euan Sutherland, following the revelation of the scale and nature of his total remuneration package, carries a stark warning to the remaining Co-operative Group leadership, who must now reflect carefully on what that means for the future. Lord Myners resigned overnight, although I understand his review of the Co-operative Group and its management continues.
	The new leadership came in without experience of the co-operative or mutual sector, and must understand the importance of maintaining strong relationships with the rest of the co-operative movement. There is scant evidence that that has so far been considered important, and the swift decision dramatically to reduce funding for Co-op organisations such as Co-operatives UK will dismay long-standing co-operators further now that the hypocrisy of the executive pay policy has been laid bare.
	The immediate response to the fresh crisis has been to accelerate the agenda for reforming the Co-operative Group’s structure. That is continuing even following the departure of Lord Myners from the board. No one, not least active co-operators, doubts that governance changes are needed. Much has been said about of the weakness of non-executives, although few have benefited more from that weakness than the current executive team. Rather than rushing headlong into irreversible changes, however, we and the Co-operative Group’s board should take a breath and calmly reflect on the issues.
	Eminent as Lord Myners may be, it is not credible to base the Co-operative Group’s future governance on the views of one man. To date, all seven regional boards have now rejected his plan, and the response has to be one of calm reflection and compromise. There are three immediate actions that should be taken to steady the co-operative ship and set a fresh course that will begin to build trust and confidence between the Co-operative Group’s leadership and members.
	The first is one about which I have received a lot of correspondence from members and customers across the country. There is no place in a consumer-owned co-operative business for unearned executive bonuses, and 100% retention payments should be scrapped. How those payments came to be requested by management, and then approved by the board, must be explained. Equally, no member of the current executive will carry the membership’s confidence if they do not immediately and publicly declare that they will not accept such payments.
	Alistair Asher, who is now the Co-operative Group’s general counsel, was formerly a partner at Allen & Overy, where he was involved with building society demutualisation. He may have worked on demutualisations in the past, but the Co-op does not want to demutualise. Another member of the team is Nick Folland, the director who deals with communications. Both those men have been given a retention package of more than £1 million this year and next year that is not performance-related. I repeat that such gross, over-inflated handouts must stop.
	There are other costs of this misguided approach to altering the way the Co-op runs itself. The “Have Your Say” consultation with customers cost £1.5 million.

Bob Russell: The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech about the co-operative movement. Will she confirm that the Labour party was established some 60 years after the establishment of the Co-op, and that it is therefore in the best interests of the Co-op to embrace people of all political parties?

Meg Hillier: Up and down the country, co-operatives embrace people of all parties. The Co-op party has a sister arrangement with the Labour party, but that is not the thrust of my comments. I am talking about the Co-operative Group, which is ratcheting up costs at a high rate.
	The Kelly review is costing £2,000 a day and the current total is £3.5 million. Millions of pounds have been spent on a new office next to the stock exchange, despite the Co-op Group having a brand new head office in Manchester.
	Secondly, an eminent co-operators group should be established to advise and support Lord Myners in the valuable work that still needs to be carried out. The current leadership of the Co-op Group should reconnect with the wider co-operative movement. The best way to do that would be to establish a panel that can provide advice and support as the group goes through its reform process. Ideally, it would be chaired by someone like the former chief executive officer Sir Graham Melmoth or the former chairman Keith Darwin who have the credibility, experience and ability to provide candid advice to help steer the group to the next phase in its co-operative future.
	Thirdly, an interim chief executive should be appointed who has mutual sector experience. The next chief executive will be perhaps the most critical person in the Co-op Group’s 170-year history. It is important that the recent errors are not repeated. It is critical that the new chief executive officer has a track record in the mutual sector. Confidence among member owners will simply not return without the trust that that would bring. The individual must understand the Co-op Group and be able to work across its diverse range of businesses.
	We would do well to remember that the most successful CEO of recent years was Graham Melmoth. He was not a trader, but managed a team of skilled executives who ran the individual businesses while he oversaw the corporate strategy and provided leadership in line with the Co-op’s core principles. Such an approach would ensure that there was appropriate expertise in each division, while militating against the excessive micro-management of recent years.
	The next few weeks will bring new challenges for the Co-operative Group. It will succeed through this period only if all its members and managers pull in the same direction and co-operate. Without an active and successful Co-op Group, our economy will lose a richness of choice and be the poorer for it. Members and customers up and down the country have been in touch with me to say that they are concerned about “our Co-op”. The management need to understand that feeling. They must listen to members. The Co-op is not just a brand; it is about mutual benefit and the sharing of profits among members. In my view, the Co-op is worth fighting for.

Martin Vickers: It is always a pleasure to speak in these end-of-term Adjournment debates. They provide a fascinating insight not only into the many parts of the country that are represented here, but into the characters of other hon. Members.
	I will raise two issues that are important to my constituency. Interestingly, two of the speeches that we have heard have spoken of community identity, service and pride. The first issue that I will touch on relates to community identity. I want to talk about unintended bias in the broadcast media and, in particular, on the BBC. Although it is unintended, such bias results in the build-up of an anti-Government feeling. That could happen to any Government. The sequence of events that I will outline is but one example.
	On the night of 5 December, my constituency was severely affected by the tidal surge that flooded hundreds of homes and businesses on the Humber estuary. At the outset, the coverage on BBC Radio Humberside and the regional TV news programme, “Look North”, was excellent. However, on national TV, there was nothing. Nelson Mandela died on the same evening. Mr Mandela was a great world statesman, so it was right and to be expected that his death would lead the news bulletins and that there would be special programmes covering his contribution to the fight against apartheid. However, almost nothing else was reported. The impression that was given to my constituents was that they did not matter.
	The tidal surge was the largest ever recorded—larger than the devastating events of February 1953. As I have said, hundreds of homes were flooded and businesses were forced to close, including the hotel in Barton-upon-Humber where, less than a year earlier, Government agencies led by the Environment Agency, local authorities, the emergency services and others, including the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), gathered to mark the anniversary of the 1953 tragedy and to report on all that had been done to prevent a repeat of that year’s flooding. The irony is that that very hotel was flooded on the night of 5 December and has been forced into liquidation. Part of the port of Immingham, the largest port in the country, was also put out of action.
	North Lincolnshire council responded very well, as did the Environment Agency, the emergency services and voluntary and community groups. Within 36 hours of the surge, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was in Immingham to receive reports from me and all the agencies involved. He had previously visited Boston and he went on to Hull. Did that figure in the main BBC news that evening? Not at all.
	My constituents were given the impression that they had been ignored. I was asked, “Where were the Government? What have they been doing to help us?” I was able to reply, “Actually, a Cabinet member was here within 36 hours.” There followed numerous occasions on which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and I questioned Ministers and met the Secretary of State. I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate in which the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) gave a full outline of the Government’s response.
	A few weeks later, floods hit the south of England. It was headline news for days on end. News editors at the BBC would no doubt say that that was because Christmas was approaching and news was a little thin on the ground, but it strengthened the view among my constituents that a north-south divide exists. They said, “Only when the Thames valley is flooded do Ministers take any notice.” That is untrue because, as I have said, the Secretary of State was in my constituency within 36 hours. However, if the BBC does not report it, it passes almost unnoticed and the entirely incorrect impression is given that one part of the country is more important than another. If the BBC management want proof of the local feeling, I suggest that they rerun the edition of “Question Time” from a few weeks ago, when it was broadcast from Scunthorpe. The first question expressed the sentiments that I have set out.
	I am not just being charitable in describing it as an unintended bias; I regard myself as a critical friend of the BBC. Regional and local reporters are, in the main, well qualified to express the views of local people. Dave Burns, who presents a daily programme on Radio Humberside, is a local institution. Viewers of the edition of “Look North” that is put out in east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire will know that Levy and Hudson figure alongside Morecambe and Wise and the two Ronnies as entertainers. They are very much a part of the local community. However, generally speaking, the BBC has a very London-centric, metropolitan culture.
	The flooding coverage is just one example of how news coverage can have a significant impact on political opinion. More thought is clearly required of organisations such as the BBC that are charged with the responsibility of being politically neutral.
	The other topic that I would like to raise is local, although it has a national perspective. North Lincolnshire council is Conservative-controlled and North East Lincolnshire council, the other authority that serves my constituency, is Labour-controlled. I suppose that Members may well expect that I would favour the former, but I am always reluctant to criticise either authority publicly. As Members will appreciate, we have to work with the councils that serve our area irrespective of their political colour. However, North East Lincolnshire council has recently made a decision that I think is particularly mean-spirited.
	Police specials have traditionally been granted a discount on their council tax, but North East Lincolnshire council has decided to abandon that benefit for a saving of just £9,600. In contrast, North Lincolnshire council has retained it. The change comes at a time when the excellent local police commissioner for the Humberside force is embarking on a recruiting campaign for 100 additional police specials. I wish to send the message that given the small amount of money involved, North East Lincolnshire council should rethink.

Eric Joyce: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, me and every other Member is on a permanent quest for knowledge and self-improvement. I thought I would help that along by saying a few words about the extractive industries transparency initiative, for which I sit on the multi-stakeholder group in the UK.
	I am happy to say that the Government signed up to the initiative last year, which will mean that in three years or so the UK will be a member of it. All the extractive industries companies based in the UK that operate here and elsewhere will have to declare to the Government the payments that they have made to the UK and to any country that signs up to the EITI. The Government will then make a statement of the payments they have received. That will not solve every problem of money going astray in developing countries, but it will move us a little way towards ensuring that the money that Governments receive from contracts and licences to exploit oil, gas and minerals, particularly in Africa but all over the world, does indeed find its way to those Governments and that they can account for it in their public expenditure.
	The initiative is chaired by Clare Short, a former Member of this House, who also co-founded an all-party group called “Trade Out of Poverty”, now chaired by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who is not in his place at the moment but who I believe will be coming back into the Chamber. The emphasis of that group, along with the all-party extractive industries group, of which I am a member, is to help developing nations encourage investment despite sometimes potentially risky contexts, particularly in minerals and mining, rather than having to rely on aid, as we often imagine they do—wrongly, actually.
	I digress slightly from the EITI, but it sometimes feels as if political and public dialogue in the UK about developing nations is always about aid—the spending of 0.7% of gross national income and so on. I sometimes think that the bar for investment in those countries is set too high. Some worthy non-governmental organisations make the wrong judgment in being too critical of where Department for International Development expenditure goes, such as when it makes it more feasible for companies to overcome substantial risk and invest in developing nations.
	There was a demonstration outside DFID a couple of weeks ago involving a couple of people in black tie and a waiter with a bottle of champagne and glasses. It was all about DFID paying money to various projects in the developing world. My first instinct was that the protest might have been by someone such as the Daily Mail—I do not necessarily want to be critical of it, but that would be consistent with its normal editorial line. However, it turned out to be a protest by the World Development Movement. It struck me that it was shooting itself in the foot by helping to bring DFID expenditure into unjustified disrepute. Its concern was that money was being spent to help companies operate in risky countries. However, there is great potential benefit to those countries in future, and I thought it was a great shame that that NGO had missed the point and wanted to discourage companies from the UK and across the world from examining prospects in some countries.
	To return to the EITI, in many ways its role is similar to the one that will be played by the EU accounting directive, about which the Government have just issued a consultation document, although it is a little different and certainly has a different purpose. The US is currently going through legal proceedings that have held up its own equivalent, but importantly, it has signed up in the past week as a candidate country for the EITI. The relevant part of the Dodd-Frank Act is being held up
	because some extractive industry companies are concerned about the emphasis being placed on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or Congo-Kinshasa to some. The concern is that it will effectively encourage people who want to get certain products from the earth to go to Australia and other countries, so the effect of legislation designed to make things more transparent could be to discourage investment and development in the DRC. I do not know whether that is right, but the process is being held up in the United States. It is really important that we carry on with our own process in Europe, which is the accounting directive—as I said, I am pleased that the Government have launched the consultation document—and the EITI.
	I do not want to bore Members for too long about the EITI, although it is an important matter that quite a few Members will know little about. However, I wish to add that the tendency until recently was to encourage developing countries to sign up to the EITI. We have Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is pretty effective—some people might argue about that sometimes—and we pretty much know who is paying tax on what, so it is hard for money to go astray. We can just to go HMRC and it tells us companies’ tax figures. It is therefore hard to get involved in corrupt practices in the UK. Developed countries have tended to say, “The EITI is not really for us. It is only for developing countries where money tends to disappear.” The effect has been that big developing countries, and middle-income countries that are wealthy in gross terms, such as Brazil and India, have said, “We’re not going to sign up to it, because none of the developed nations has. It is a bit patronising expecting only developing nations to sign up and not the US or UK”. Only recently have developed nations begun to sign up. It might seem a bit strange that we have not signed up to it before, but it is essentially because the context was different. We have now accepted the point that it is difficult to ask developing nations to sign up to a transparency project without signing up ourselves.
	The EITI has been going on quietly in the background, but it is important to get it on the record because it will be important when it comes to fruition in about three years. Officials at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Minister in charge, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson)—she ostensibly chairs the meetings, but of course she is on maternity leave at the moment—have put a lot of time into it, as have the businesses that have signed up to the multi-stakeholder group, on which the relevant NGOs and the Government are also represented. A lot of work is going on to ensure that we achieve candidacy status in about 18 months. It is a commendable, broad cross-party effort, and there is no dispute about the objective. As I said, the EITI is chaired by Clare Short, who obviously has a particular political perspective, but has a sound perspective on the extractive industries.
	From time to time we have had some difficulties, with a degree of purism creeping in—I am trying to choose my words carefully—from NGOs with substantial control over interests in developing nations. It sometimes feels as though strings are being pulled and wires being tugged to get certain outcomes. For example, it was very difficult to get Ethiopia made a candidate country. It finally happened a week or two ago, but there was enormous lobbying against it. That was a great shame,
	because Ethiopia was very keen to sign up, and so were the Ethiopian NGOs. Everyone agreed, but western-based NGOs were keen to stop it happening, for various reasons. I understand the human rights issues, but I think that Ethiopia will eventually qualify for membership.
	It is a shame when western-based NGOs in very developed countries—whether they are based in London, Washington or New York—sometimes seem to look past the interests of nations that we want to help to develop economically and reflect their own interests in getting stories or increasing their membership and funding. I know that that is contentious, but that is how it seems to me. The stewardship of the EITI has been very sound in dealing with that in the last few weeks. People who know about the EITI will know that Ethiopia has been a contentious issue, but I am pleased to say that it is now a candidate country.
	Various things are going on quietly in the background, although full agreement has not been reached. The UK Government are actually leading on the issue of beneficial ownership transparency. That is part of the EITI and we hope that the outcome in three years’ time will be that the UK signs up. We do not think that there is corruption in the UK, but if we sign up to a strong, gold standard EITI—without unnecessary bells and whistles—it would set a good example for all the other nations we would like to see sign up to it.
	I shall conclude by wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all Members and officials of the House a nice Easter.

Edward Leigh: It is a pleasure to follow a fellow member of the House of Commons rowing team. Every summer we try to raise some money for charity.
	It is a great privilege to be a Member of the House of Commons. I was thinking that as I was standing in the Division Lobby and looking at the marvellous architecture and reflecting on all the good work we do here. Let us be honest, however, and recognise that some of the publicity we have had this week has not been the best.
	I speak as the chairman of the group of MPs that liaises with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—I served on the group with the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), for a while—and I want to talk about how we can make Parliament more relevant to people’s needs. We should not be too negative about ourselves—I also serve on the Council of Europe and I look at how other parliamentarians around Europe operate, and our debates are still much more relevant and spontaneous. For instance, I only decided to speak today in the light of events this week. That spontaneity in Parliament is very important, but we have to accept that we have a problem with our image in the eyes of the public, on expenses and much else, including whether we are relevant to the lives of ordinary people.
	We have seen some publicity today to the effect that it is rather sad that we have no mothers in the Cabinet. I share that sadness: after all, half the population of the country are women, and we all have mothers. Even those women who work, and work very hard, often
	define being a mother as the most important thing in their lives. I do not blame the Prime Minister, because there may be all sorts of reasons—perhaps there are no suitable people—but I do not want to get into all that. However, we need to make this place more attractive and diverse. We have not yet succeeded in attracting as many working mothers to this place as we should have done. It is our fault because of the nature of our work, our expenses regime, the salary and much else. Would a general practitioner and mother working in, say, Newcastle find becoming a Member of Parliament attractive? Her salary would probably be halved, but people are prepared to take enormous salary cuts to work in this place—it is a wonderful privilege and many of us would work here for nothing. But people have to live their lives and support their families. We now have an arcane expenses system that makes our job very unattractive to many working mothers in particular.
	I have made that point to IPSA many times as chairman of the liaison group. I have said that we want a decent salary. IPSA is independent and it should set the salary properly. It is setting about the task fairly, and trying to average out the salary in real terms over the last 110 years since Members of Parliament have had a salary. It has come up with a reasonably fair figure, but we have told it again and again that if we are to attract people who are juggling different family responsibilities, it would be better to have a flat-rate transferable allowance, rather than the arcane and complicated expenses system. It would have to be voluntary at first, because many people are locked into the expenses system, but it would enable people who are juggling family responsibilities to do so in the knowledge that they could come here and perform their public service. If we carry on with the present system of complicated expenses, I fear that these scandals will go on and on, year after year, drip by drip, affecting the credibility of Parliament.
	We can make Parliament more interesting and more effective in other ways. The power of Back Benchers to hold the Executive to account could be more pronounced. I am a great fan of recent moves to bring in open primaries in the selection of Members of Parliament. One of the best new Members of Parliament is my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). She was elected on an open primary and she is a marvellously independent MP. I would even be prepared to move eventually to the system that operates in other countries of open primaries not just for candidates standing for a parliamentary constituency for the first time, but for sitting Members. If we had that system, Members of Parliament would be much more accountable to their constituents and their views, and much less accountable to the views of the Whips Office. I have nothing against the Whips Office—I see a Whip on the Front Bench and she is a delightful lady colleague for whom I have great respect—but Parliament would be a better place if Members felt that their careers depended more on their constituents than the vagaries of promotion and the opinion of the Whips Office. Having an open primary system would be a very interesting development.
	I cannot speak for the Labour party—perhaps it is making more progress—but we have started this process in the Conservative party. We undoubtedly have a problem with our local parties, which is an important constitutional point. Local Conservative parties—I suspect it is the
	same for the Labour party—are getting smaller and smaller. Local parties have probably always been fairly small in the Liberal Democrats. The problem is getting worse. Local parties are getting so small now that they could be in danger of takeovers from extreme minority interests, sects or odd bods. In that sense, they are becoming less representative of people who do not take a lot of interest in politics. That is not entirely the fault of political parties. All such groups are having difficulties and getting smaller, so we have to think of creative ways of engaging with the public. Many MPs use social media creatively, but the concept of widening our accountability beyond our local parties to the wider public through a primary system is interesting.
	We need to keep working to increase the power of Select Committees and Back Benchers generally vis-à-vis the Executive. Select Committees have gone from strength to strength. I have served on many Select Committees in my time, starting with the Defence Committee and then moving on to the then Agriculture Committee, the Social Security Committee and chairing the Public Accounts Committee. Ultimately, however important Committees are in gaining publicity and publishing interesting reports, they are only scrutiny committees. In no way do they have anything like the authority and power of congressional committees. We have constantly to develop ways of increasing the authority of Select Committees.
	We have to develop an alternative career structure for Members of Parliament. There are 650 MPs and there can only be 50 or 60 Ministers. There are too many Ministers. The number of Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries seems to increase relentlessly, sucking more and more people from the majority party into the Executive. That is a wholly unhealthy way of conducting a free Parliament. We need to build the Select Committee system up to make it more powerful and attractive. We need powers and authority over appointments and even, in certain circumstances, policy. For example, the Defence Committee could have power over procurement, as the armed forces committee does in the United States. All these ideas should be investigated continuously to make Back Benchers more relevant and free, and with more control over the Executive.
	The primary system opens up the relevance of MPs to their own people. This is not an appropriate moment to talk about the issues I sometimes mention, but everybody knows that I may have my own views on gay marriage, overseas development and wind farms being put in my constituency through a very generous subsidy system. I may also have my own views on planning in villages and HS2. I do not need to weary the House by detailing them all—Members probably suspect where those views are coming from—but I hope and I suspect that, whether on planning, wind farms or overseas aid, I represent a certain strain of opinion in a conservative rural constituency in the east midlands. I hope that my views are not completely out of kilter with many of the people who live in my constituency. Indeed, I believe it is my job to speak up for middle England. There is nothing wrong with that. Plenty of people speak up for other parts of England, Scotland and Wales and for other viewpoints. I sometimes think that the conservative voice of middle England is not adequately spoken up for.
	Following on from the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), many people in the east midlands and northern England—my
	constituency is a northern seat—feel that there is a metropolitan bias in our whole system, whether in the BBC, the Cabinet or at the top of political parties. I have been an MP through many Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition and they are all the same: they tend to promote their friends. My great good friend and the first leader I worked for, Margaret Thatcher, was just as bad as the rest, so this is not a coded message attacking the current Prime Minister or anybody else. However, there is the view in northern England that there is too much emphasis in our public life on the liberal metropolitan elite, and that there is not enough hard-hitting, robust debate. That debate does not necessarily have to come from the right; it can come from the left too.
	This is where I will finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I think I have made my point. I hope the reforms I have talked about result in a more varied, robust and independent Parliament.

Kelvin Hopkins: It is a great and rather unexpected pleasure to speak this afternoon, and a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). We may have different views on a range of subjects, but I support the idea that MPs should stand by their principles, speak up for their constituents and be independent-minded, as well as being broadly in line with their own party’s philosophy. I think I am very much in line with my party’s philosophy, but I cannot speak for everybody in my party on that score. The Labour party membership card states that
	“We are a democratic socialist party”
	and I say, “Hear, hear” to that.
	I have come here to talk about an entirely different subject: rail freight. In business questions this morning, I raised with the Leader of the House the serious issue of air pollution and diesel particulates, and their effect on health in cities, particularly in London. London is a difficult place for people with asthma, chest complaints and so on at the moment, as air pollution is causing serious health difficulties. We have to do something about diesel. A significant measure should be to shift a lot of road freight on to rail. For heavy freight, road freight produces up to 12 times more CO2 and other emissions than the same tonne-mileage taken by rail. Even for lighter freight, there are still substantial multiple emissions. Shifting a substantial amount of road freight to rail would make a real difference, particularly in cities. If we could get the lorry through-traffic in London on to rail, we would be doing a tremendous service to the people of London and the rest of the country.
	Rail Ministers big up the amount of freight on rail, but it is actually puny. Half of it is internal freight for Network Rail—ballast, rails and so on—so we are not doing well, especially in contrast with the continent of Europe, where there is heavy investment in a big freight rail network. To see a modal shift in rail freight capacity, we have to build new rail freight track with a large gauge capacity to take lorries on trains. It is only when we can carry lorries on trains that we will have the shift I want to see.
	Regrettably, our Victorian forebears, fine people though they were, who built wonderful railway lines, decided to build too small a gauge. On the continent of Europe,
	those chose a larger loading gauge. I am not talking about the track gauge, but the loading gauge—the size of the wagons that travel on the track. Across the continent, dedicated freight lines are being built. That will make a massive difference to the amount of freight on rail. Tunnels are being built through the Alps that are 35 and 38 miles long, and will be capable of carrying trains with lorries and double-stack containers. These will be vast cavernous tunnels that we just do not have.
	The cost of converting all our existing rail network to carry lorries on trains is prohibitive—it is just not possible. What we need is new capacity, and there is a scheme that would achieve that. I have spoken about the scheme previously in the Chamber. I am personally involved: I am a member of a team supporting the GB freight route. I have no pecuniary interest; I am committed to the scheme because I believe in it passionately. If we are to make progress, we have to have this scheme. It is a first-class scheme that would solve so many of the problems that new rail capacity exhibits.
	The GB freight route would overwhelmingly use old track bed and under-utilised existing track. The line would go from the channel tunnel all the way to Glasgow, serving the west midlands, east midlands, south midlands, south Yorkshire, south Lancashire, the north-east and Scotland. It needs only 14 miles of new track, nine miles of which would be in tunnels under the Thames and elsewhere, so it would not cause any serious planning difficulties. No houses would need to be knocked down and there would be no environmental degradation. It would not cause any problems. I think there is one pig farm on the whole route, but I would hope that we could deal with one pig farm. Generous compensation to pig farmers is the way forward.
	The route is very precise, having been worked out by dedicated British Rail-trained engineers with long experience. Also on our team is Ken Russell, a major road haulier from Scotland. He now runs the Barking freight terminal, which takes lorries on trains from the continent of Europe through the channel tunnel and along HS1 as far as Barking, where the lorries are lifted off. They cannot go any further, because the track cannot take lorries on trains. Continental hauliers and logistics companies who have said “We want you to go past Barking” have been told “We cannot go past Barking, because the track cannot accommodate lorries on trains.” We need to do something about that.
	As I have said, the scheme is very detailed, and has been designed very precisely. Every mile of the track has been examined carefully by engineers, and we know exactly what we are doing. I have travelled along most of the track and seen it for myself. There are no planning problems, there will be no environmental degradation, and there are no houses on the route. We have already demonstrated that it works. Trains have come from Antwerp and Poland with lorries on them, and the lorries have been lifted off by Ken Russell’s firm, Russell Transport, at Barking. The terminal is owned by Axa, but is operated by Russell Transport. I must emphasise again that I have no pecuniary interest in the scheme, and never will have; I just believe in it.
	Even now, freight trains are running from Poland to China. Once we have crossed the channel, not just Europe but the whole of Asia is open to us, and
	eventually trains will be able to run trains from Glasgow to Beijing—if we can travel from Glasgow to the channel tunnel. In order to do that, however, we must have that crucial ability to put lorries on trains at the terminals in our great economic regions, which would breathe new life into those regions as well. There would be a direct and easy route. Once a lorry had been lifted on to the train at a terminal, it could be delivered to Dortmund or Rome the next day. We have demonstrated that that would work.
	We have a great deal of support. The supermarkets, for example, have said that if the line is built, they will offer 10,000 lorry loads a week in the first instance, and much more after that. We have the support of hauliers such as Eddie Stobart, the Malcolm Group and our own firm, Russell Transport. We also have the support of Eurotunnel, whose deputy chief executive has met us on a number of occasions. He is a good friend. There is a huge amount of capacity in the channel tunnel, which is, of course, very under-utilised. There will never be enough passengers to fill its capacity, so that capacity must be filled by freight. Hundreds of trains can go through the channel tunnel every week, and scores can go through it each day. They can run quite quickly one behind the other, provided that there is nothing on the track to restrict them.
	We have met rail constructors who have boasted that they can build the line more cheaply than even we have suggested, although our figure is very low. Our figure for the whole scheme, which is based on the out-turn figures for the cost of HS1, is £6 billion. Just £6 billion for a massive addition to the rail network! That is about a third of what we are spending on Crossrail. The reason it is so cheap is that we have no planning problems. We are using under-utilised old track routes and unused track bed.
	Moreover, there will be no conflict with HS2, if it goes ahead. Whatever we think of HS2—and I happen to think that the money would be better spent on a number of other railway schemes—the fact remains that there will be no conflict. There is a six-mile stretch in the midlands where the two lines would have to run side by side, but providing four tracks rather than two for those six miles would not be a problem. I shall say no more about HS2, because I do not want to open up that great can of worms at this particular moment.
	We have political support from all sorts of interesting people. One of those who are actively supporting us is my noble Friend Lord Prescott. We are currently looking into the possibility of a link between Merseyside and Humberside, so that there can be roll-on/roll-off traffic from Ireland to Merseyside and across the Pennines to Humberside—and from there to the continent of Europe if necessary. Of course, certain conditions would have to be met. We must think about how we can engineer the track from Sheffield. Our terminal there would be at Tinsley, which is a big rail freight depot that will be well known to those who are familiar with the area, and which has plenty of capacity.
	The scheme has some crucial elements of which the Government will have to be aware if we can get them behind it. The only hold-up so far has been caused by the Department for Transport. Everyone else seems to be in favour of the scheme; even the Mayor of London has given us the nod. The problem has constantly been with the Department for Transport, although not with
	Transport Ministers, some of whom have been very supportive. Not only a previous Labour Minister but Ministers in the present Government are privately sympathetic to the scheme. One has visited the track with our engineers. Given that the scheme is so obviously what, in modern parlance, is described as a no-brainer, I do not understand why the Department does not jump at the idea.
	We estimate that the scheme could take 5 million lorry journeys off the road each year, It would take all the north-south freight traffic on the west coast, east coast and midlands main lines, and free up those lines for passenger traffic. The idea that passengers should be taken off the north-south lines and on to HS2 in order to free them up for freight is constantly being thrown at us, but the problem is that the trains cannot transport lorries. Until that can be done, there will be no serious modal shift. I suspect that in future we will travel by train more and more as global warming takes hold and it becomes more and more difficult to travel by road. Railways are indeed the transport mode of the future. The west coast, east coast and midlands main lines should be used to the maximum for passenger traffic, and the freight should be shifted to our dedicated—or freight-priority—line.
	I know that the Deputy Leader of the House, who is present, has experience of transport matters. He may be aware of the Barking-Gospel Oak line in London, which is currently being used for very limited passenger traffic. There is talk of upgrading it and making it a bit more useful, and that will be part of the scheme. Getting through London is the difficult part. An upgrade of that line so that it can link Barking with north-west London is crucial. I hope that when the Government proceed with the upgrade that they have promised, that upgrade will include enabling the line to take lorries and not just full-sized but double-stack full-sized containers. We are talking big stuff here.
	That is the first of two vital components. The second is the four-mile Woodhead tunnel, which goes through the Pennines and has not been used for decades. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) knows it very well, because it is in her constituency. It is a beautiful tunnel, which was built on a very large scale. A single track down the centre would be required to provide sufficient height, but that would not be a problem for a four-mile section of track. If we are to enable traffic to go from Merseyside across the Pennines and further north to Scotland, we will need the Woodhead tunnel. There has been talk of its being handed to the electricity grid so that cables can be put through it. I do not know whether that is happening yet, but it would be an utter waste. If it has not yet happened, I suggest that the old parallel tunnels next door to the Woodhead tunnel should be repaired, and the cables should be put through those. The repairs would require a small amount of money. Even if the cables have already been put through the Woodhead tunnel, I think that they should be relocated to the smaller tunnels, so that the big tunnel can be freed up for the line.
	My right hon. Friend Lord Prescott is very keen on the cross-Pennine route, taking traffic off the M62, and this would be the way forward. Having Humberside and Merseyside linked for Irish traffic in particular would be a tremendous addition. Every major economic region of the country would have a terminal nearby, even the south-west, although that would be the last, and of
	course coming along the M4 and on to our scheme at the north-west London terminal would not be difficult. We do propose, however, a link from Birmingham down to the south-west and a terminal in the south-west in a later part of the scheme.
	I have outlined, and made the case for, the scheme. I want the Government to take it seriously and I hope very much that they will be persuaded, perhaps after I have made the case on a few more occasions.

Peter Lilley: I want to discuss a subject that strangely we often shrink from discussing in any depth: the housing shortage in this country, its consequences, its causes and its cures. Reflecting over the years on both the social and the economic problems of this country, it strikes me that almost all the social problems and many of the economic ones are either caused by or aggravated by a shortage of housing. This is true not just of homelessness, overcrowding and the huge housing benefits bill—the fastest rising benefit bill and one of the largest components of the Department for Work and Pensions budget; it is also true of the benefit trap and the resultant disincentive to work, in that so many people have housing benefit even if they are in work and consequently suffer a loss of benefit when their earnings go up, and of family breakdowns, single parenthood, declining home ownership, and the inability of young people to leave home. All these problems are aggravated by the housing shortage. Now the average age of first-time buyers in London is the late-30s, which is dramatically different from a generation ago.
	There are also economic problems: the level of debt, the diversion of lending from business to mortgages, and the mortgages cycle. They, too, are all aggravated by this housing shortage.
	The causes of our having the highest prices and the highest rents in Europe and ever-longer waiting lists are simple enough: the number of households is outstripping the pitiful level of new house building. There are two main factors accounting for that. First, there are smaller households. Over the years, the average size of households decreases by roughly 0.5% as people live longer; often there is one of a couple living in the home; or the children might have left home so there are just the parents living in the home. The average size of households is declining, therefore, and, sadly, family breakdown adds to that trend. We would have to build a 0.5% addition to our housing stock every year just to cope with that factor, and we are barely doing that.
	The other factor we are strangely reluctant to discuss is the fact that we are now a country of mass immigration. Since Labour took the brakes off immigration in the late ’90s, between 2 million and 3 million additional people have come to this country. For centuries this country was a net exporter of people. Rather bizarrely, now that we are one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, we are a net importer.
	I find it strange that many people argue that immigrant numbers are not the problem so long as we have the right sort of immigrants. They say that so long as we exclude scroungers and the unskilled and so on, numbers do not matter. The situation is almost the reverse, however, because the sort of people we have had are
	overwhelmingly decent, hard-working, law-abiding people who come here to make better lives for themselves. The idea that they are qualitatively wrong is nonsense, insulting and racist. It is numbers that matter. It is numbers that have contributed and added to, and aggravated greatly, the housing shortage in this country. Very few people come to this country to claim benefits, although that is the focus in the discussions we have in this country, but all of them need homes, and all of them are going to occupy homes that otherwise would be available for the people already here.
	I wrote a pamphlet back in the early part of this millennium entitled “Too Much of a Good Thing?” I hope that title makes clear my view of immigration: immigrants are basically decent, nice people—fellow human beings, children of the same God, people we should love as our neighbours when they live next to us. But we are foolish to invite too many people into this country. I was caused to publish that pamphlet by looking at the housing shortage and the reason for the rising demand for house building in this country, and I was immediately labelled a racist and an attempt was made to shut off the debate. I hope we can stop doing that, because we will never solve the problem if we do not understand its cause.

Andy Slaughter: I agree absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman that this subject is important, and it is the subject I am going to speak about, but I disagree with everything he is saying about it. There are 50,000 new homes being built in my constituency—a small, densely populated constituency—over the next 20 years. The majority of them will be sold off-plan to overseas investors, not to immigrants to the UK—not to people who now have British citizenship or are acquiring it. They will be sold in that way for a profit because mainly Conservative councils do deals with developers to sell them in that way. That is the root of the housing crisis, in London at least.

Peter Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is simply factually wrong. It contributes to the housing problem, but to a small degree. I advise him to read an article in City A.M. last week which got the figures for the number of such new unoccupied houses in London, and it is very small. It contributes to the problem, and if it is bigger than I think, I entirely agree with him that we ought to tackle it , but to suggest that it has anything like the impact of allowing 2 million or 3 million extra people, and every year an extra 200,000 or quarter of a million, into this country is simply to try to divert people’s attention from the self-evident realities. Let us deal with all the problems, including the problem the hon. Gentleman identifies, but we should not try to pretend that there would not be a problem if that issue were to go away.
	The only answer in the long run is to build more homes. We cannot pretend that we can solve the housing shortage by manipulating house prices or house rents or mortgage interest rates. Whatever the price of a bottle, we cannot get a quart into a pint pot. If we have more people here, we have to build more homes here. I am not suggesting that we undo history. The history means there are more people here, and we have got to build more homes if we are to overcome the social and economic problems that result from a housing shortage.
	If there are 2 million or 3 million more people here, we have to build a corresponding number of additional homes, because those people by and large are of child-bearing age, they will want to form households and we have to accommodate that. We also have to avoid the excuses that are often given for not building homes, not least in my constituency. I have a Hertfordshire constituency, and Hertfordshire is the most densely populated county outside central London. None the less, we have to build more homes there and avoid the excuses for not doing so.
	The first excuse for opposing any proposal that gets planning permission is, “They’re the wrong type of houses.” In Hitchin people say, “They’re too small. There are too many flats, and we don’t want to build any more flats. Any new proposal must be stopped because it is for small homes or flats.” Elsewhere they say, “They’re too big. We don’t want those. If we have got a housing shortage, we should be building the small homes for first-time buyers and flats.” We must avoid seeking refuge in excuses. We probably need more of all kinds of property, including flats, small starter homes and larger family homes.
	The second excuse that people use in Hertfordshire is that immigrants do not come to our area. By and large, that is true: the vast majority go to central London or to areas with an existing large immigrant population, including Luton. I see my distinguished neighbour, the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), nodding in agreement. Immigrants tend not to come to Hertfordshire, but the people who would have lived in the homes in central London that are now occupied by people from abroad—or kept empty by people from abroad, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) says—do move out to the home counties. We cannot pretend that that does not happen. We cannot just shut the gates and pull up the drawbridge and pretend that we are not going to accommodate them. We have to accommodate more people.
	The third excuse that people use is that we cannot build new homes because there is no infrastructure to support them, and if we build, it will just create a demand for such infrastructure. However, it is not houses that create that demand for more schools, hospitals, roads and water; it is people, and the people are already here. It is people, not houses, who consume water and who need hospitals and schools. The people are here, and we need to provide the infrastructure and the homes for them. We cannot pretend that the lack of one is an excuse for not providing the other.
	The housing shortage creates problems for people like me who represent densely populated constituencies whose distinctive feature is the green belt. When I was first elected, I made the defence of the green belt a feature of my maiden speech. I pointed out that the one thing that united the diverse settlements in my constituency was the desire to remain separated from each other by strips of green belt. They should indeed remain separated in that way: the green belt is a vital and valuable part of our planning law, and we should attach enormous importance to keeping it. However, that means that we must build elsewhere, on brownfield sites or using infill development, unpopular though that often is.
	New towns will also have to be built, not too far from London. We cannot pretend that this can all be done in the north of England. We cannot tell people to go
	and live in the north, or give them incentives to do so. There are already enormous incentives to move out of London and the home counties to the north. Anyone who sells their house in Harpenden can buy an equivalent property in the north of England for a fraction of the price and live off the investment income from the rest of the money. There are therefore already enormous incentives, but if people still have a desire to live in London and the home counties, that reflects the reality of economic and other forces that have to be taken into account.
	We must do everything we can to stimulate and promote growth in other regions, but let us not pretend that we can avoid the need to build homes in and around London. We must do that, and we must avoid the excuses that have been used to prevent us from doing it. We must defend the green belt, but we must not be so hypocritical and bigoted as to pretend that we can have no housing at all elsewhere. I hope that enough of us will have the courage to say that, so that we can at least double the rate of house building in this country, as we must do if we are to tackle the underlying economic and social problems. If we do not do that, we will continue to suffer indefinitely.

Jim Shannon: I should like to start by thanking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), for agreeing to allow me to speak now, ahead of the hon. Gentleman.
	I should like to use this opportunity to draw attention to social isolation in rural constituencies, which is an issue that is close to my heart. As I often have said in this House, I represent the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom. Strangford is made up of many rural and some isolated areas. I am well aware of the beauties of living in the country, but I am also aware of the drawbacks, one of which is isolation. For most people, it is no problem to run to the local corner shop or the nearest garage when the milk runs out sooner than expected, but this is not the case for an elderly person who lives in the countryside, where there is no such thing as the corner shop.
	My rural constituents are reliant on cars to run even the smallest errand. I can hear those with green hearts crying, “Use public transport” or “Get on your bike”, but that is not as easy as it might be for those living in London. It is much more difficult for those of us who live in rural communities. The only public transport available in my constituency is the bus, as there are no rail lines, but with the way things are in our economy, the bus routes are designed to maximise the number of people on board. That is a fact of life—it is simple economics—but it does not always work for those who have to wait half a day to get to their local village or to the bigger towns.
	More and more people are cycling, but the roads that are not main thoroughfares are not fit for bikes, even for those who are fit to cycle. Steps have been taken in my constituency and elsewhere to provide more opportunities for those who wish to cycle, including cycle lanes and portions of the road being set aside for cyclists. I welcome the fact that there are some good things happening in my constituency, but they are not happening everywhere.
	That leaves people reliant on their cars, and the increases in fuel prices have hit these isolated areas hard. We are rightly urging people to get into work, and trying to encourage mothers to work even part time, but for anyone who lives in one of my rural areas and works in Belfast, the two-hour round trip costs £10 a day. That is £50 week or £250 a month, which is a huge chunk out of any wage packet. If the two earners in a household are on completely different work schedules, that might necessitate two cars, which will double the cost.
	I will in no way minimise the fact that the fuel companies are taking advantage of the situation and making jaw-dropping profits, but we in this House also have a case to answer. I have been outspoken, as have others—including, notably, the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—about the rate of UK fuel excise duty, which results in 58p a litre being added in tax. I give credit to the Government, however, because they have taken significant steps to address the cost of fuel through the abolition of the fuel duty escalator; we welcome what they have done in that regard over the past four years.
	The high cost of fuel further isolates those in rural communities, as rural residents travel more often, and cover greater distances, by car than those in urban areas. Taking children to the boys brigade or the girls brigade, to sports or to after-school clubs is now a costly venture. If a local church is putting on a play, there will perhaps be a practice on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday. That is three days and six journeys, in addition to taking the children to the Campaigners on a Tuesday night. This is another example of the costs multiplying for people who live in rural communities. For many families, the cost of those journeys is too much, so their children do not get to dress up as a shepherd or an angel. The isolation is clear.
	The RAC has identified transport as the single biggest area of household expenditure bar none, even housing, food and power. If people were having to deal only with rising pump prices, that would be one thing, but they are also experiencing soaring insurance costs. Northern Ireland has the highest insurance costs in the whole of the United Kingdom. Many TV adverts offer insurance at premium rates, but the small print at the bottom of the screen often says. “Not available in Northern Ireland”. People are also experiencing hikes in parking charges, and train fares are increasing well above the rate of inflation, so every extra penny spent on the forecourts makes a real difference.
	Unsurprisingly, it is those on the lowest incomes who are hit the hardest. They spend more on running a car as a proportion of their income than any other section of society. There is a high degree of car dependence in the rural communities that I represent. About 80% of the population live in a car-owning household, and over the past 50 years, car ownership among the poorest fifth of households has increased from 5% to 51%. The dependence on cars is critical. Those figures show how the economy has had an impact throughout the United Kingdom, and that is magnified in rural areas. And with less funding for community groups, services such as community transport are having difficulty putting on the special taxis and buses for those who are disabled and live in the countryside. That is yet another blow for those who cannot get out of the house and who exist in a contactless world. For elderly people, this is a critical issue.
	How can we make a difference to the lives of those who live in our rural communities—the children who cannot get to after-school activities and clubs, the stay-at-home mums who have no car and no opportunity to meet other mums and have some adult company, the people who are ill or disabled and cannot drive and who no longer have an affordable taxi service, and the elderly who oft-times end up all but imprisoned in their own homes? What difference can we make? Again, a reduction in fuel duty would be a start, and although I accept and understand that the Government have taken significant steps, I believe that those who live in the countryside need a special reduction—or a pilot scheme of some sort—to enable the rural community that I represent, with the highest prices in the whole United Kingdom, to address that issue. A reduction in fuel duty would be a start, but more needs to be done. I am anxious to hear what steps or action the Government plan for the isolated in our rural communities.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, your family, right hon. and hon. Members who are here and who have participated, and their staff, all the very best for a happy Easter? I hope the weather is good and you have a very relaxed time.

Bob Blackman: It is a pleasure and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who took us on a tour of his constituency.
	The key point behind these debates is the opportunity to raise a range of issues that might apply not only to Members’ constituencies, but to things of international and national importance. I shall raise some issues related to my constituency that are creating great turmoil. As we approach the most holy week of the Christian calendar, it is appropriate that we consider some of the things that are happening in my local area.
	First, there is the good news. My constituency already plays host to the first state-sponsored Hindu primary school in the country, which has operated very successfully for a number of years. I was pleased to be present at the laying of its foundation stone and have supported the school since its inception. So this week we had the really good news that the country’s first state-sponsored Hindu secondary school will be sited in my constituency, on the Whitchurch playing fields. I trust that that decision will be endorsed tonight at Harrow council’s cabinet meeting and we can look forward to the redevelopment of the site in keeping with what is required. It will be the biggest free school in the country and one where parents of Hindu faith will be able to make a choice about their children’s secondary education. That is something we should endorse across the House.
	I also note, I have to say, that the people who formed the rather oily, shady Whitchurch consortium, which was going to take over those playing fields, turn them over to private use and exclude the public from using them, will be shown the door. No one locally will mourn their passing. That is the good and positive news that we can look forward to.
	Secondly, there is the bad news. We have a site in my constituency called Anmer Lodge, which was closed many years ago. It belongs to Harrow council; it is a landlocked site in Stanmore and it borders a car park
	that is associated with a shopping centre in Stanmore and is a district centre. The site has been sold to Notting Hill Housing Trust and last night a planning application was approved not only for a Marks & Spencer superstore, which will be welcomed locally, operating as a supermarket and providing competition to other supermarkets in the area, but for the development of 120 flats—tightly arranged, densely configured and not particularly, in my judgment, well designed—that will lead to a dramatic increase in traffic and degrade the quality of life for residents around the area.
	Residents were almost united in the view that the Marks & Spencer supermarket was welcome, and that some housing was welcome as well. We need housing, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said. The problem is that the consultants estimate that the whole development, including 120 flats—likely to involve two cars per household—and a Marks & Spencer supermarket, which will have footfall seven days a week, will generate only about 69 extra car parking visits a day.
	From 8.30 to 10.30 in the morning, and from 3 o’clock in the afternoon to about 7 o’clock in the evening, the site is gridlocked, so it is incredible to believe that it will not impinge on the quality of life for all concerned. Regrettably, Harrow council’s planning committee did not see the good sense of all the various local groups objecting to the overdevelopment of this site, and allowed it to pass.
	I move on to the issue of Barnet football club and the Hive. Madam Deputy Speaker, you might say, “What is Barnet football club doing in Harrow?” I am a great football fan, as many will know, and a fan of great football as well. Barnet football club was kicked out of Barnet and its Underhill stadium, because of disagreements with the local council and a large number of residents. The club sought a contract with Harrow council many years ago to develop the Hive as a centre for the development of youth football, women’s football and other associated activities, but not for first team matches.
	Of course, this did not stop the club. First, it applied for planning permission to complete the stadium on the Hive, and this meant it got planning permission for a new stand, for floodlights and to complete the stadium that had been half-built in the interim. But it then decided to ignore the planning permission that had been given, build a stand that is twice as high as the original permission allowed and put floodlights in that are three times the height of those that were permitted.
	I wonder sometimes whether Barnet football club has a solution to the so-called energy crisis in this country, because those floodlights are on all winter, until all hours of the day and night—often until 11.30 pm or midnight—and they light up everyone’s homes throughout the area so that people do not need to turn on their lights. In fact, if they did, they would not see the difference, because the floodlights illuminate their bedrooms, front rooms, dining rooms and kitchens. All local residents complain—quite rightly—that the lights have been operated in an outrageous way.
	Barnet football club did not stop there, though. It then decided to use the stadium for its first team matches, despite the fact its contract with the council does not permit the playing of first team matches there until 2015, thinking “Well, what’s a couple of years between people? Let’s just ignore it, because after all we can just carry on and the council will roll over.”
	Not content with that, the club then introduced London Broncos to the site, so at the Hive we now have the impact of unrestricted car parking all over residential streets for Barnet football club first team matches; and London Broncos, the rugby league club, who are not doing particularly well in the Super League, who are also impinging on residents every week. Basically, throughout the whole year, the area around the Hive is a nightmare for local residents. The council has failed to implement any controls on parking, so people can park on residential streets wherever they like, whenever they like, and nothing is done about it. It is a real and serious problem.
	At the same time Barnet football club has ignored all the rules. The planning application it submitted was rejected, yet it just carried on regardless. To me, Tony Kleanthous and his ilk at Barnet football club deserve to return to Barnet as fast as possible—I wish them well in that—and to get out of Harrow.
	The other two issues I want to raise briefly relate to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital and to Stanmore station. The Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in my constituency has been around for about 100 years. Over the past 30 years it has developed as a national and international centre of excellence in the treatment of and recovery from orthopaedic elective surgery. It is a brilliant hospital. The surgeons and medical staff do brilliant work, and recent clients have included Princess Eugenie, who required an operation at a very young age to correct a spinal problem, and the noble Lord Tebbit’s wife, who spent almost a year in the hospital, recovering after the Brighton bombing.
	It is a wonderful hospital, but it exists in Nissen huts that were built during the second world war. It has one of the best records of any hospital in the country, and certainly of any in London, on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus—it has not had a case of MRSA for five years. One reason for that is that the hospital is exposed to the elements; it has no such thing as the closeted central heating that exists in modern hospitals—far from it.
	We have had a plan for the redevelopment of the hospital for many years. The previous Government, on three separate occasions, promised the redevelopment of the hospital but failed to deliver. Prior to the election, I took the then shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), to the site and he stated categorically, “If we are elected to government, we will see the rebuilding of this hospital on the existing site during the duration of the Government.” There is one year to go and, as yet, not a spade has been laid in the ground. However, we do have a comprehensive plan: for 300 homes to be put on the site—once again, this is much-needed housing—having freed up some of the land; for a private hospital to go alongside the national health hospital as a centre of expertise and excellence; for not only the Aspire centre, which helps people recovering from orthopaedics and is already there in a modern facility, but a nursing home, which will look after many people who need to be resident at the site; and, crucially, for the rebuilding of the national health service hospital.
	Trying to grapple with the intricacies of NHS funding and decision making has been a real eye-opener for me. The number of business cases that hospital trusts and boards have to go through to get proper funding is incredible. We have now reached the stage where NHS London has the business plan from the board, all the
	figures stack up, as I understand it, and there is a dispute involving the NHS TDA—the appropriately named Trust Development Authority—on agreeing the numbers and confirming the funding and financing. That is despite the fact that one of the first acts of this Government, when we reviewed the capital allocations made by the previous Government, was to confirm the funding available for the rebuilding of this hospital on the existing site. The NHS people who are looking at this—I am talking about officials, not Ministers—are doing a really bad job, holding up the redevelopment of this site. Planning permission was granted for the master plan a year ago, yet we have not made progress with the site. I trust however that with the plan the board has laid out, we will see the start of development this summer of part of the work. I believe there is one last figure to be agreed, of some £20 million, which is in dispute between NHS London and the board, but I trust that over the next few days, having entered a new financial year, that will be signed off and approved. I regularly apply for Adjournment debates on this subject and will continue to do so until we get either the money or an Adjournment debate. I hope we get the money first and then we can have an Adjournment debate celebrating the fact.
	Finally, I wish to raise the issue of Stanmore station. The Royal National Orthopaedic hospital is a centre of international excellence, and the nearest station to it is Stanmore. The good news is that life expectancy increases by a year with every stop travelled along the Jubilee line from east to west. Stanmore is at the extreme end of the Jubilee line, which means that life expectancy there is the greatest of anywhere in London. The bad news is that Stanmore has an increasingly elderly population. Our hospital treats disabled people, but our station has no disabled access. So disabled people, be they wheelchair users or people with other disabilities, are unable to come to the hospital by public transport—that is nonsense in this day and age. I have been involved in a campaign for more than 10 years to get a lift installed at Stanmore station. The villain of the piece is the former Mayor of London, who took the lift out of the budget when the station was being redeveloped. That redevelopment has been completed, so getting a lift into the station is difficult now. However, I trust that when the enlightened decisions are taken on rebuilding the hospital on the current site, we will get some enlightened decisions on getting a lift into the station, so that wheelchair users and other elderly people will be able to get from the platforms to the street without having to climb the equivalent of Mount Eiger in steps on the way up.
	I will end my speech there, Madam Deputy Speaker, but first may I wish you, and all staff and all Members of the House, a very happy Easter break? We look forward to the opportunity to be out on the streets talking to residents about the issues that matter to our constituents. Given that the Indian elections have started today, we should send out a strong message from this House wishing the biggest democracy in the world every success in having peaceful elections, and I hope that Shri Narendra Modi will be elected as the next Prime Minister of India.

Andy Slaughter: I want to talk about housing and planning policy in my constituency, which is having a detrimental effect on the quality of
	life of tens of thousands of my constituents in the short term and on the physical and social integrity of the area in the longer term. Given the nature of this debate, I will take a Pearl & Dean moment and give three tasters of other issues that will occupy my time and that of my constituents between now and the general election, and probably long beyond that.
	The first is truly a life and death matter: the inaptly named “Shaping a healthier future” programme of NHS North West London, which is overseeing, in effect, the closure of two major hospitals and four accident and emergency departments in north-west London. An article in last night’s London Evening Standard by its health editor, Ross Lydall, summed up the futility, incompetence and callousness of the way in which this largest ever hospital closure programme is being carried out. It was based on research by the London assembly Labour group, which revealed that 200,000 people in London last year went beyond the four-hour limit in A and E. The article stated:
	“Imperial NHS trust, which runs St Mary’s in Paddington, Charing Cross and Hammersmith, missed the target on 50 weeks. North West London hospitals trust…missed the target on 51 weeks.”
	Those two miscreants run three of the four closing A and E departments.
	This process has been a stitch-up from the beginning: it has had fixed consultations; it has been subject to the most appalling propaganda by Hammersmith and Fulham council which simply tells lies, saying that hospital departments are going to stay open when in fact they are closing; and the trust has now put back the final decisions on the closures, which should have been taken as long ago as last October, to the week after the local elections—that does not fill me with anything other than dread.
	I am glad that the arguments over the central issue are being made in the local elections on 22 May. It is not because people are Luddites that they oppose new developments and specialisms within the NHS; that has being going on for years in the area. It is because these are crass and life-threatening proposals. What really sealed the issue for me was a garbled letter that I received from the NHS this week. It said that it was going to find, from the various clinical commissioning groups, about £100 million in this financial year to provide the community services that it said it would have provided before the closures went ahead. It then added for good measure that it also wants to share out £35 million between the CCGs, which means that my CCG will have to give money to those CCGs that are in deficit. That is a shambolic way in which to run the health service.
	The subject of dodgy consultations links me to my second subject, which is Heathrow’s expansion. People in west London have received a consultation document called “Black Heathrow” from a front organisation for Heathrow. It is completely unintelligible, talking at one stage about the closure of Heathrow, which no one wants, and then trying to advocate a third or additional runways on the site. I am pleased to say that there is a genuine cross-party organisation on this subject, which includes the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), me and many
	others of all parties and of none who genuinely represent the views of the 2 million people in west London, the overwhelming majority of whom do not want Heathrow expanded.
	I share the frustration of Howard Davies over the political fix that both coalition parties go along with. I am talking about the fact that the decision on airport capacity in the south-east has been kicked into touch until after the election. I think Mr Davies is a constituent, and his report so far is good as it explodes the myth of the need for a hub airport and raises the prospect of a second runway at Gatwick, which is, on every criteria, a better option. I hope we can have a little more honesty and transparency in this debate, and that we can force a decision before the next election.
	The third issue is police crime statistics, which we have already touched on in our discussion on the report from the Public Administration Select Committee. The end of neighbourhood policing, which is what we are seeing in London and around the country, is a huge step back, and does nothing to ensure public confidence in the police force. On the misuse of statistics, I gave the example earlier of a propaganda exercise, which in fairness to the police was carried out by the local authority on their behalf, that pretended that extra resources were going into policing. In fact, the official statistics, if we can believe them, say that there has been a cut of 158 officers—police community support officers and police officers—in Hammersmith since the last election. I raised that matter with the police and crime commissioner.
	I raised another matter with the commissioner which will affect Members across London. He was perfectly clear that it was not in his gift to do anything about this, as it was a political decision by the current deputy Mayor to sell off police houses across London. Most police accommodation is effectively social housing. Many tenants are current or former police staff. Many are families who have lived in that accommodation for 15, 20 or 25 years. They do not have security of tenure, so families are being evicted on a daily basis. I have 40 homes in my constituency at Broadmead. Families who thought that they had a home for life are being thrown out on to the streets or the tender mercies of the local authority.
	That brings me neatly on to the issue of housing proper. I am only able to talk about that thanks to two sources. One is what I call, pace Sherlock Holmes, the Uxbridge road irregulars. I am talking about the hundreds of my constituents who write to me every month about housing issues and tell me about things such as the 300% rise in complaints about council housing repairs or identify the hundreds of empty council flats that are being sold off on the open market by the local authority. I also want to thank Martin Peach, one of my constituents who happens to be a housing expert. He has written a report on the issue, which reveals the depth and cynicism of the housing policy in Hammersmith. I have had to rely on those sources because, unlawfully, the local authority refuses not only to give me the information voluntarily but to answer freedom of information requests. Over a two-month period, before and after Christmas, I submitted nine such requests. I do not think that is particularly excessive, and I usually put in a lot more, to be honest.
	As the local elections are approaching and the authority is so ashamed of what it is doing, it aggregated those freedom of information requests because most of them
	had the word “housing” in them. Some were about how many properties were sold, some were about rent arrears and one was about the Christmas card sent at great expense to all tenants that said, “Please don’t get drunk this Christmas, pay your rent instead,” which I thought was an excellent use of public money, but because they all contain the word “housing” they were aggregated and I was told that under the Freedom of Information Act it was too expensive to answer those questions. Clearly, I will go to the Information Commissioner and clearly I will get a decision in my favour, as I am sure that that is an unlawful step, but that will probably take me six months and the aim will have been achieved. That is another example of how the Freedom of Information Act is misused by local authorities. However, as I say, we have other sources to help us find out what is going on.
	Let me briefly summarise what is going on. The policy in Hammersmith is to build no new social rented accommodation, in a borough where the average house price is, at a conservative estimate, £675,000, although some estimates say that it is £750,000, and where rent for a two-bedroom flat is £400 to £500 a week. At least 10,000 families are in housing need. The local authority’s response is not simply to say that it will not build a single additional social rented home, but to decide that it will reduce the existing stock. In 2011 it decided that any property that required repairs costing more than £15,000 could be sold on the open market. At the end of 2013, 262 properties had been sold, generating £112 million in revenue.
	At the time, the local authority was warned—again, this takes us into the realms of illegality—by the director of legal services that it should not sell off scarce properties, when in fact it had sold off 72 ground-floor flats and 31 whole houses, that it should not sell off properties if there was a pressing housing need, which of course there is, and that it should have regard to the effect on persons protected by the Equality Act 2010. The people who are disadvantaged—those who are most in need—tend to be from minority ethnic groups, people with disabilities and other groups who are protected by that Act. The director of legal services also said that sales should not be tainted by considerations of electoral advantage. I will let that one hang in the air.
	Selling off perfectly good, sound council flats that could be rented to homeless families is step one, and step two is a joint venture with a private developer that will ensure that initially 150, and over time perhaps several thousand, blocks or estates of council property will be emptied out, not replaced, and then developed into what one of my constituents poetically called “zombie homes for absentee oligarchs”. That is obviously a waste of public funds. Most of those properties have been newly refurbished under the decent homes programme, but they will either be sold off by auction or demolished. Housing those families who would have gone into those properties and who will now be in the private rented sector will cost a great deal in housing benefit, and that does not deal at all with the social cost.
	In the period from 1 January 2010 to 20 November 2013, 2,505 homeless households approached the council for help. As of 20 February 2013, 138 people were sleeping rough on the streets of the borough. The council’s emergency housing costs rose from £387,000 in 2009 to £1.7 million in 2012. It placed 463 households
	with one child or more outside the borough, and a further 121 households with no children but to whom the council owned a homelessness duty were placed in accommodation outside the borough. Of all the households that were housed temporarily, 329 were placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, often for longer than the law permits. A further 22 households were housed outside London altogether, at a further cost of £79,000. All told, 600 households were housed outside the local area and 12 hostels were sold off.
	How many people are in housing need in the borough? I said more than 10,000, which was the number on the housing waiting list this time last year, but then the housing waiting list was effectively abolished and now the council will tell you that the figure is only 700. However, the waiting time for properties was between two and seven years depending on the size of the property. How selling off or demolishing hundreds of homes helps, I do not know.
	What reasons are given for this? First, that there is too much social housing, but there is 31% social housing in Hammersmith and Fulham, which is below the inner London average. Secondly, that there is no need for social housing; we need a property-owning democracy. The net effect between this census and the one before is that the amount of owner-occupation in the borough fell from 43% to 35.6%, the second highest fall in the country. That is a very successful policy.
	On planning, the target is 40% affordable housing in any scheme. What is achieved, on average, is 16%, and none of that is social rented housing. Most of it will be for a discount market sale or some form of shared ownership, with a likely income needed of £50,000, about £37,000 net. That is not affordable housing in my definition, yet the definition of affordable housing has been extended so that it now applies to households earning £80,000 a year.
	Who are the 50,000 homes in Hammersmith being built for? As I said in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), that is the target number. The answer is in a letter that comes through my letterbox in an ordinary street in Shepherd’s Bush every day, from estate agents who say that they have demand from overseas investors. They say they have 3,000 purchasers looking to buy in our area, many of whom have 100% cash funds.
	I shall give one example of a riverside development next to an ordinary terraced street in Hammersmith. It is a modern, contemporary development of one, two and three-bed luxurious apartments in a tranquil riverside location, priced between £600,000 and £1.7 million. The agents details say this:
	“Also exclusive to the services residents will sport complex, which includes a swimming pool, sauna, spa room, gym, massage room, virtual golf, movie theatre for residents, a wine room and a room for meetings…The complex is in walking dostants…and the Royal Borough of Kensington Park…is another Stronie away through the area Fulham—is one of the larges parks in London—Richmond Park.”
	I apologise for the English, but, of course, that was translated from the Russian by Google translator, because almost all the developments in my constituency are marketed either through The Straits Times or through websites in the middle east or Russia. That is who a local authority in London thinks it is appropriate to build for when we have tens of thousands of local people of—I say this to the right hon. Gentleman—
	whatever ethnic origin, whether they are indigenous, first, second or third generation into the UK, who need homes. We have a successful and vibrant mixed community in Hammersmith, which suffers only because of the direct policies pursued by this Government, this Mayor and the local authority in my area.

Richard Graham: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) introduced his speech by saying that the recess debate was one of the highlights of the year. He proceeded to make it so with a bucolic description of blinking at an orange butterfly on the edge of the A40, which itself was gently sipping on flowers. Not everyone here will know that my right hon. Friend’s Twitter address is “@uxbridgewalrus”, which irresistibly drew me to one of the great parliamentary speeches of all times, by his spiritual ancestor in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking-Glass”:
	“‘The time has come,’ the Walrus said,
	‘To talk of many things:
	Of shoes—and ships—and sealing wax—
	Of cabbages—and kings—
	And why the sea is boiling hot—
	And whether pigs have wings.’”
	But, alas, my right hon. Friend then moved from the sunny uplands of orange butterflies to the darker territory of vultures and the EU.
	Let me take you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all remaining Members, on a journey from the edge of the A40 to the M4, and so to the A417 and down the Cotswold hills into a glorious sunset with views all the way to May hill, the Malvern hills, Wales beyond and the ancient cathedral city of Gloucester, nestling beside the River Severn below. There is only one problem—people might find, especially on a Friday evening, that they will be blocked on the A417, especially around the Air Balloon roundabout. They might also be blocked on a Saturday afternoon. This Saturday, when heading to Kingsholm to watch Gloucester defeat Bath in an epic game of rugby, they might even miss the first half waiting for the queues of traffic at the Air Balloon roundabout to dissolve.
	I want to talk about the so-called missing link of the A417—the road that links the M4 near Swindon and goes on to the M5 on the edge of Gloucester. Some 5 km of this road is single-carriageway, and that causes a major blockage at the roundabout I described. This route linking the M4 and the M5 is a major strategic route not just for Gloucestershire but beyond. It provides the connectivity for businesses to local, national and international markets. It is the major strategic route from the midlands to London, the Thames valley, the airports, and even the south coast ports. As a result of the 5 km of single carriageway and some 34,000 traffic movements a day, many of which are held up, this heavily congested road is, alas, recognised nationally as a notorious accident black spot.
	It is time that this situation was resolved. The so-called brown route scheme has therefore been proposed as a solution with which we very much hope the Government are going to help. The first stage involves including the
	missing link in phase 2 of the Department for Transport’s route-based strategy for further development. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House is taking careful note of the importance of the case that has been made to the Department. We need his support not just for the proposal itself but to encourage his colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), to get behind this plan wholeheartedly and join his five coalition colleagues in Gloucestershire—and many other MPs, from Stafford at the top of the M5 to the outskirts of London at the beginning of the M4—to ensure that visitors can get to the Cheltenham literature festival in his constituency, and Cheltenham races on the edge of it, in time to listen to great talks and see great races. We all need to back a plan that will turn the missing link into a rediscovered link and enable millions of people every year to experience a stress-free discovery of the joys of Gloucestershire.
	After resolving how to get to Gloucester, either by road or by train—my favoured route, which is about to be made quicker and easier by the redoubling of the Kemble to Swindon line, also long overdue and being undertaken by this Government—the next issue is to improve the regeneration of the city centre and make Gloucester again, as it once was, one of the leading cities of the realm. I pay tribute to Gloucester city council for its continued leadership on many aspects of the regeneration of our city, particularly city council leader Paul James, who told me earlier this afternoon that we had been successful in our bid for funding for a new bus station, which will benefit not just my constituents but many others around the county as a transport hub in the shire capital. Councillor James and the city council in general have been working extremely hard on the part of the city centre regeneration around the King’s Quarter shopping area, and I believe that the bus station will be the catalyst for further announcements on that in due course.
	I now want to focus on the regeneration of the area that we know as Greater Blackfriars. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, from your own visits to Gloucester cathedral and, in particular, the spectacular Crucible exhibition of two years ago—surely one of the best sculpture exhibitions in the country for a generation—how important it is when in Gloucester not only to be able to visit the cathedral but to see the other great buildings and places of heritage interest. Later this year, we have Crucible 2, which I hope will bring you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and bring all Members present from their constituencies, including Harrogate and Knaresborough, to come and see it.
	We need to improve and regenerate the area that I call Greater Blackfriars, which stretches from the former prison to Shire hall at Westgate street and includes many buildings in between, which are ripe for regeneration, and a cleared site known as the Barbican outside the former prison, now in the ownership of the city council. This offers us a unique opportunity for a master plan of regeneration that will incorporate the prison, which is shortly to be sold, the buildings known as Quayside, which is surplus county council estate, the building in which the police currently have their city headquarters, which they will be leaving soon, and the city council site of the Barbican.
	Regeneration enables us to offer a vision that includes new accommodation—new housing for perhaps 2,000 residents—new offices for perhaps 1,500 people, and a
	new justice centre which can incorporate all the current courts and tribunals, many of whose current premises have passed their sell-by date and need replacement. Perhaps in due course, if the proposal is right and properly costed, that vision could include a new civic centre which could house both the county and city councils, alongside a five-star hotel, perhaps close to Westgate, in which visitors can stay when they come to see our great rugby team—unfortunately the new hotel will not be there in time for the world cup in 2015, but there will be some great games played next year—and to visit the cathedral, which I hope will shortly be successful in its bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund to improve the experience for visitors.
	This vision, which covers the whole of the Greater Blackfriars area, will radically transform the impression and perception of what Gloucester is all about. It will be the link between the already successful Gloucester Quays shopping area, which attracts over 3 million visitors a year, and a walk alongside the docks, which is one of Gloucester’s and the country’s great masterpieces, the deepest and furthest inland port in the country, towards the cathedral, through the new Greater Blackfriars area.
	Both the proposals that I have mentioned, the resolution of the A417 missing link and the housing-led regeneration of the Greater Blackfriars area, are included in the strategic economic plan put forward by our local economic partnership, the LEP for Gloucestershire. This is a relatively dense 100-page document which not all my constituents will read in the half-hour or so before this Saturday’s game against Bath at Kingsholm. That is why I wanted to draw attention today to two major elements which will help to transform access to and the regeneration of our city centre.
	That is a good note on which to bring my speech to an end and to wish Madam Deputy Speaker and all colleagues a very happy Easter.

Bob Stewart: I want to talk about something serious: the lack of a maritime patrol aircraft for our country. The Nimrod MRA4 was scrapped in 2010. We had squandered £4 billion on it and it was a total write-off. In fact, it was cut up. Four years on, we still have no maritime patrol aircraft for our country. The United Kingdom is a maritime nation. We are surrounded on all sides by seas. Others, arguably less maritime than our nation—France, Spain and Portugal—all have a maritime patrol aircraft capability.
	The UK has clear international obligations to have oversight of adjacent oceans and seas, as laid out in four conventions: the international convention for safety of life at sea, the international convention on maritime search and rescue, the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and the convention on international civil aviation.
	What are our responsibilities under those conventions? In essence, we are required—and we have agreed—to have oversight of 1.25 million square nautical miles of the Atlantic and North sea. We are required to maintain an operational search and rescue capability over that area. In rough terms, we have to look after up to 1,200 nautical miles of the Atlantic up to Iceland, but we are not able to do it. We use our search and rescue helicopters and surface vessels, sometimes with dunking
	helicopters, but helicopters can reach only up to 240 nautical miles. They have no linger time at that distance and have to come back and, frankly, surface vessels using helicopters cannot do the job because even then there is a gap of 1,000 nautical miles that we just cannot supervise. Therefore, we have to get allies such as the French, with their Breguet Atlantic maritime patrol aircraft, or the Spanish or the Portuguese to help us. That is fine, in a way, but not great, given that we should have responsibility for our own seas.
	The fact is that maritime patrol aircraft look not just over but under the seas. The invulnerability of our SSBNs—our nuclear submarines, which have a deterrent on board—is threatened by the inability to see exactly what is following them. We can hardly ask our allies to do that for us. I will not go further into that.
	We definitely need a squadron of maritime patrol aircraft. I declare an interest, because my brother, ex-Wing Commander Andy Stewart, was commanding officer of 201 Squadron—the Nimrod squadron—and flew Nimrods throughout his career. He is on my back about this all the time, so I hope the House will forgive me for continuing to ask questions about maritime patrol aircraft and for taking up its time on the subject this afternoon. However, this is terribly important to our country. We cannot guarantee the security of the waters around us, but we should be able to do that, especially given the increasing incursions of Russian aircraft and naval vessels around our northern waters.
	According to the Defence Committee, the Ministry of Defence gave back about £2 billion in underspend to the Treasury last year, and there is likely to be another underspend this year. That is great—we all want that—but I wonder whether it could be used to start ordering something crucial. This is the biggest military capability gap in our armed forces.
	Perhaps we could afford to start the process of getting a maritime patrol aircraft before the next strategic defence and security review. There are two obvious options for off-the-shelf buy. The first is the Boeing P-8 Poseidon, which is probably the leading contender and which operates in the United States. The second is the Orion maritime patrol aircraft from Lockheed Martin, which operates in Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
	At the moment in the southern Indian ocean, Poseidons operated by the United States and Orions from New Zealand or Australia are combing the waters to try to find the remains of an aircraft that, frankly, has just disappeared. Australia, New Zealand and the United States can do that, but what would happen if one of our aircraft or an aircraft flying over British territory disappeared 900 miles out into the Atlantic? We do not have anything that could get there quickly or could search like a maritime patrol aircraft, which is something we desperately need. We should seriously consider restoring a maritime patrol aircraft capability to our country as soon as possible. We should start moving towards that even before the next SDSR, which will presumably be after the election, perhaps in 2015 or 2016.
	I seem to be the last Back-Bench speaker this afternoon. I thank all hon. Members who have stayed here to listen to me. I thank the staff of the House of Commons for being such decent people—kind, hard working and always up to help. I end by thanking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. God bless everyone, and happy Easter.

Tom Brake: It is a pleasure to respond to the pre-recess Adjournment debate. As is customary, I will do so at some length to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who opened the debate. Hon. Members who can see the Dispatch Box will notice that I have a significant number of notes relating to the points he raised—I will take them in no particular order—but I hope to leave time to respond to the points made by other hon. Members as well.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the Maldives and the double taxation and bilateral investment treaties. I will ensure that his comments are passed on to the Treasury, which is the lead Department on this issue. It is clearly important that action is taken to strengthen the Maldives economy. We hope that President Yameen will now work towards economic reform in the Maldives, in addition to considering the treaties.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned the Assisted Dying Bill. The Government believe that any change in the law in this emotive area is an issue of individual conscience and a matter for Parliament to decide, rather than one for Government policy. The Government will take a collective view on the Bill in order to respond to the debate on Second Reading, a date for which has yet to be confirmed.
	My hon. Friend raised the issue of dog breeding—puppy farming—about which there is a significant petition. Legislation is already in place to control the breeding and selling of dogs. Local authorities have powers to grant licences for dog-breeding establishments, and have powers of refusal based on the grounds of welfare. Powers are also available to local authorities to investigate and enter premises in relation to allegations of poor welfare or cruelty.
	My hon. Friend referred to the all-party group on hepatology. The Department of Health is concerned by the increasing burden of liver disease—he said it was the fifth biggest killer—and the resulting premature mortality, much of which is preventable. Together with NHS England and Public Health England, the Department of Health will support local authorities and clinical commissioning groups in their responsibility to deliver improved outcomes in relation to liver disease.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the controversial issue of gender selection abortion. As I am sure he and other hon. Members are aware, abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal. The Abortion Act 1967 states that two practitioners must be of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the woman has grounds for an abortion according to the criteria set out in the Act. The chief medical officer has written twice to all doctors involved with abortion provision to remind them of the need to ensure that they work within the law at all times.
	My hon. Friend also referred to melanoma. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has recommended Yervoy as an option for treating advanced melanoma in people who have previously received therapy. NHS commissioners are required to fund Yervoy if there is an indication that clinicians want to use it. NICE is currently developing guidance on the drug’s use in previously untreated, unresectable stage 3 or 4 malignant melanoma.
	I hope I have addressed all the medical issues to which my hon. Friend referred, and I will now talk about Quilliam. In a previous guise, when I was my party’s home affairs spokesman, I had knowledge of that organisation. He talked about the need to ensure that we address the promotion of extremism on the internet. Members will be aware that terrorist groups make extensive use of the internet to spread their propaganda, and we have seen how that can contribute to individuals becoming radicalised. A number of those convicted under the terrorism Acts were exposed to radicalising content that they found online, including Inspire magazine, sermons and bomb-making instructions. A number of people who have been involved in terrorist activity have admitted to accessing radicalising content online. Keeping up with the scale and pace of terrorist and extremist content online remains a challenge, so it is important that we have a balanced approach, including working with industry, law enforcement and the public. The police counter-terrorism internet referral unit is removing more illegal terrorist content than previously. Since 2010 we have taken down more than 29,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material.
	My hon. Friend referred to the work of Seetec recruitment in Southend, and he talked about South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust. He previously talked about the trust’s services in the pre-recess Adjournment debate in December 2013. He had an opportunity to discuss his concerns in Westminster Hall on 5 March this year, and I hope he secured suitable responses. It is crucial that all NHS care providers deliver care to the highest standard possible. As a local MP, he is well placed to help ensure that the trust is held to that high standard. I hope he will continue to engage with the trust, local GP commissioners and national regulators to that end, and I am sure he will.
	My hon. Friend raised the further health issue of thalidomide victims. He will know that on 20 December 2012 the Department of Health announced a new 10-year grant for the Thalidomide Trust. The grant will be paid on an annual basis, uprated in line with inflation, which means that over the 10-year period it will be worth some £80 million. The Department of Health currently has no plans to make representations to the German Government on compensation from Grünenthal to the UK victims of thalidomide, but the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is responsible for care services, hopes to meet representatives from the Thalidomide Trust to discuss the matter further.
	My hon. Friend praised Westcliff high school for girls in his constituency, which has the second-best GCSE results in the country. I congratulate the school. In 2013, 100% of pupils achieved five or more A to C grades. The school cannot do any better, but it now has the challenge of maintaining that performance hereafter.
	My hon. Friend mentioned tongue-tied breastfeeding—it is very difficult to say “tongue-tied.” I was not aware of the issue, and I do not know how many other Members were aware of it, but he is right to raise its profile, particularly as he has found that even medical practitioners are not necessarily aware of the condition. I hope there will now be greater recognition. He will be pleased to know that NICE has issued full guidance to the NHS on division of tongue-tie for breastfeeding. He asked for a meeting with Health Ministers, and although I
	cannot commit the diaries of other Ministers, I am sure he will pursue the matter vigorously. I am sure that the Department of Health will look carefully at the different health-related points that he has raised during this debate in case there are things that it wants to respond to him on directly.
	That might include the issue of FH. I will leave it at that, rather than spelling out precisely what it stands for. My hon. Friend may know that the NICE clinical guidelines recommend that health care professionals should use cascade testing to identify people with FH. Those guidelines represent best practice as they are based on the available evidence and developed through wide consultation. In view of their complexity and the different states of readiness for implementation in the NHS, clinical guidelines are not subject to the same statutory funding requirement as NICE’s technology appraisals.
	My hon. Friend clearly has some strong views about the effectiveness of the Essex probation trust. I understand that he has corresponded with Ministers at the Ministry of Justice about rehabilitation services in Essex. I am sure he welcomes the changes that the Government are making to ensure that people who were not receiving support and assistance will do so. He has put his concerns on the record. I am sure that in any process of assessing individual bids, the competence of the organisations that submit the bids will be taken into account.
	My hon. Friend spoke about Bahrain. The Government remain supportive of the reforms that are under way in Bahrain. We commend the steps that have been taken by the Bahraini Government to implement the recommendations of the Bahrain independent commission of inquiry. Progress has been made in a number of areas, but there is more to be done. We encourage the Bahraini Government to ensure that the remaining recommendations are implemented soon.
	My hon. Friend talked about the importance of ensuring that drug treatment is tailored to the individual. I certainly support that. It must be the most effective way to help someone overcome their addiction and to reduce the health harms that are associated with their illicit opiate use. It is for NICE to decide when there is sufficient evidence to update its guidance and appraisals. It might be considering that issue at the moment.
	My hon. Friend spoke about the wine and spirits industry and wine duty. I am sure that he supports the steps taken in the Budget, such as the reduction in beer duty and, in relation to the spirits industry, the freezing of the duty on Scotch whisky. We all know that pubs are an important community asset where people socialise and consume alcohol responsibly. Supporting pubs through the reduction in beer duty was therefore a welcome measure. Ending the wine duty escalator will support pubs that have diversified away from beer. It also ensures that beer and wine duties remain broadly similar, as is required under EU law.
	The last thing that my hon. Friend raised was the issue of CCTV spy cars, which councils use in some circumstances to raise money by issuing parking fines. The feeling among drivers is that they suddenly receive a fine some weeks later, when they are not aware that they have committed an offence. Clearly, we do not propose to do anything to prevent a parking warden or police officer from issuing a penalty in cases of genuinely
	dangerous parking. We want to ensure that, particularly around schools, parking restrictions are enforced. Parents often request the presence of a CCTV car to monitor other parents who do not observe the rules and, as a result, might endanger the safety of children. I hope that I have dealt with all my hon. Friend’s points.
	I now move on to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).

Edward Leigh: May I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the House? In all my time here, that is the fullest reply I have ever heard to any Member’s speech. It was fantastic, and we now want him to give as full a reply to all the other speeches.

Tom Brake: I rather worried that the final sentence of my hon. Friend’s intervention would be a requirement to respond in suitable detail to all the other speeches. I do not want to give away any secrets, but there are advantages to Members letting me know in advance what will be in their speech, because it perhaps ensures a slightly greater degree of detail in the response. Fortunately for me, however, my neighbour the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden raised an issue with which I am extremely familiar—the future of St Helier hospital, which is in my constituency—so I required no briefing notes from officials on it. I have been living, eating and breathing it for the past 25 years or so, and my wife had my children there.
	As the hon. Lady will be aware, £290 million was allocated to St Helier under the previous Government, which I welcomed, and that was confirmed under the current Government, which I also fully supported. As she said, a review called “Better Services Better Value” was put forward. Had the Surrey GPs not said that they did not support it, it would potentially have led to the closure of the A and E and maternity services at St Helier and Epsom, which I opposed. She referred to the 13,000 signatures on her petition, and I think mine currently has 19,000, so we are both raising awareness of the issue. She commended the supporters of the campaign in Merton, as I do, and a wide range of organisations in Sutton, such as the league of friends, that are campaigning on the issue.
	I must say, however, that I do not think it is entirely helpful to the campaign to try to make it partisan in the way that I am afraid some of the hon. Lady’s fellow party members have. They have claimed that clause 119 of the Care Bill will allow the Secretary of State for Health to close any hospital anywhere in the country at any time if he decides on a whim to do so. That is clearly not what the clause is about. It is about scenarios such as Mid Staffordshire, where the way in which the hospital was run meant that more patients were dying than should have been the case. In a very limited number of circumstances—it has been used only twice—there is a need to take urgent action, and that is what the clause is about. It is not about a well run hospital such as St Helier, which is in category 6, the category for the safest hospitals in the country. I wish that that argument were not being deployed, because it does not add to the campaign, which is strong enough as it is. The hon. Lady and I, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who is also campaigning hard on the issue, will continue to run the campaign.
	The hon. Lady also referred to surgery schemes that have stalled. I am sure that her local clinical commissioning group will have noted her concerns, and I hope that it will respond promptly, and preferably positively. I will also draw the matter to the attention of the relevant Health Minister, to ensure that the Department of Health takes whatever action it can.
	The hon. Lady referred to GPs charging for letters. I am not aware of any other organisations that I contact that charge for providing a letter to assist a Member of Parliament in pursuing casework—I do not know whether any other Members know of any. It is regrettable that some GPs choose to do that. I should point out, however, that although GPs have a statutory duty to provide certain things for free, they may charge fees in some circumstances. I will ensure that her concerns are raised with the Department of Health and that it responds to her directly.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) said that the pre-recess Adjournment debates are one of the highlights of the year, and I agree with him. He referred to the butterfly supping on the nectar of a flower alongside the A40. I hate to spoil the picture that he built up for us, but I suspect that by now the butterfly has been demolished by a juggernaut driving along the A40. I heard on Radio 4 that this has been a slightly better year so far for butterflies, and I also felt rather guilty about removing a substantial amount of ivy from a tree when I learnt from the same programme that ivy is exactly what butterflies need in the winter and to provide nectar in the autumn when few flowers are available.
	My hon. Friend also talked about vultures and I think we all wondered for a moment what he was about to say. He then mentioned the European Union and I thought it would be one of those stories in which the EU is to blame for everything. In this case, it would seem that the EU is to be blamed for the deaths of European vultures. I will ensure that, if appropriate, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responds on the issue of bearded vultures as I know that my right hon. Friend identifies with those birds and wants to see their numbers grow—

John Randall: I just wish to point out that the bearded vulture is also known as the lammergeier and the bone breaker.

Tom Brake: We have learnt two more stunning twitcher facts this afternoon. They will go down on the record and in years to come people will read my right hon. Friend’s contribution and benefit from his expertise on bird watching.
	My right hon. Friend also explained that Malta was not on his holiday list until it addressed the issue of turtledoves and the wall of lead that birds fly into as they approach that island. He then went on to the subject of the Wildlife Trusts and the campaign it is running to save grasslands as part of our natural environment—something that I am sure we would all support. He referred to the Allerton project which is a farm that operates on a commercial basis, but takes its conservation responsibilities very seriously. That best practice should perhaps be more widely promoted, and I am pleased that DEFRA is aware of it.
	My right hon. Friend then talked about the modern slavery Bill, and I am sure that the Home Office will look seriously at the recommendations from the Joint Committee. I agree that modern-day slavery is an abomination. Members of Parliament all read their local papers avidly, and we can all spot the cases of modern slavery they contain, such as the brothels that have been closed down or the cannabis farms that can be found in all sorts of places, including neat, tidy and relatively affluent suburbs such as Sutton, Carshalton and Wallington. Cannabis farms are regularly found in houses, empty warehouses and empty blocks of flats. My right hon. Friend referred to early-day motion 1257. He does not normally support early-day motions, but this one was to celebrate the 175th anniversary of Anti- Slavery International, and we join him in congratulating that organisation on its anniversary.
	My right hon. Friend also mentioned his central library and the investment that has gone into it. He said that he was not being partisan in saying that the London borough of Hillingdon was brilliant in terms of its library provision, and I am not being partisan when I say the same about the London borough of Sutton, where we have also succeeded in investing in libraries, especially those that work jointly with sports centres and so on to maximise footfall and other benefits.
	My right hon. Friend plugged Northern Ireland as a holiday destination, and I agree with him that it is a place that everyone should visit. Great steps forward have been taken since the Good Friday agreement, but some significant issues still need to be addressed. We are all very pleased that he got a bat detector for Christmas. I hope he makes good use of it.
	The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) also mentioned the Wildlife Trust and praised its work. He touched on residents’ associations. We all have effective residents’ associations working hard in our constituencies. In my case, they are fighting against a proposal for a very large McDonald’s on Stafford road. He referred to RAF Northolt, wanting to ensure that any consultation, for example on plans to increase the number of flights, goes beyond just Hillingdon council. I will pass on his concerns to the Ministry of Defence to ensure that perhaps a wider consultation is embarked upon.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to underrepresentation of black and minority ethnic people in the media. The Government are committed to black and minority ethnic diversity in TV, film and the arts, both on and off screen. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) recently met leading figures from these sectors to consider options to improve representation. I think we all support the idea that people who appear on our screens or on our airwaves should be fully representative of the population as a whole, and be in roles that do not stereotype.

Gareth Thomas: Will the Deputy Leader of the House ask the Department for Culture, Media and Sport whether Ofcom might be tasked with more specific monitoring of what is really going on? That is the nub of the point I was trying to get across.

Tom Brake: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman raised a point about monitoring data no longer being published. I cannot provide any further information, but I will, as he requests, ask the Minister to respond.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned a decline in police numbers in Harrow. The independent crime survey has identified that since 2010 the level of crime has gone down by 10%. That is something we can all welcome. I note the drop in the number of officers in his borough as a result of changes that have happened in London. I have seen a similar decline in the number of officers in Sutton. My concern is that people need the reassurance of police visibility. As a result of these changes, there is concern that the deterrent effect is not what it used to be. His concerns are on the record. The Mayor of London may wish, if he is following this debate, to respond directly to him on that point.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) had the novel proposal, which I think we all wish we had thought of ourselves, of redirecting the Tour de France through every single road in his constituency, or at least the ones that are the responsibility of Essex county council, to ensure that all the potholes are filled in. I commend him for his initiative. He clearly has strong views on his county council and has used this debate to put them on the record. On the subject of potholes, he will be pleased to hear that in this financial year the Department for Transport is providing more than £1 billion to local authorities for local highways maintenance, which includes tackling potholes. There was, of course, £200 million announced by the Chancellor in the Budget for pothole repairs. I hope he welcomes the activity on this front. He also referred to an exchange around quarterly meetings of Essex MPs. I would hope that any local authority seeking to work with its Members of Parliament would not choose to do so in a way that gives favour to one party over another. I hope it takes note of this debate.
	The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) referred to the Co-op Group, which, as she knows, is going through a difficult time. The resignation of Lord Myners from the board after some directors criticised his review of the group’s structure has created further instability, and the group is now facing losses of up to £2 billion. There is clearly a need for action, and she did a very good job of specifying the action that she considered appropriate. I am sure that the members of the Co-op Group will read carefully what she had to say. They clearly need to put their house in order—something that only they can do—and I agree with her that a period of calm reflection, building trust and confidence is required. I also agree with her that if we were to lose the Co-op, we would lose some of the richness and variety from which we currently benefit.
	The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said that he felt that there was unintended bias on the part of the BBC. I suspect that, whatever coverage it had or had not given to Nelson Mandela, there would have been an issue: the coverage would have been too little for some, or too much for others. I am not sure that the BBC could ever have got everyone on board. What the hon. Gentleman certainly did, however, was reinforce the point that his constituency is key and should not be neglected at the expense of any other constituency in the country, especially given that it was so badly affected by a tidal surge. He drew attention—perhaps with some justification—to the difference between the coverage of the floods that hit the south and the coverage of those that hit the north.
	The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) concentrated on the extractive industries transparency initiative, which the Government fully support. He praised the work that the Department for International Development is doing. I agree with him that the fact that the United Kingdom is the only large industrialised nation that is contributing 0.7% of its GDP to overseas aid gives us significant clout in discussions on these matters, and that much of our investment in developing countries benefits the UK as well. That cannot be stressed too often. The Government certainly would not want any actions involving the extractive industries to reduce investment in developing countries, because that investment, and growth in those countries, can make a far bigger contribution to their development than even the significant level of financial aid that comes from countries such as the UK. If the transparency initiative comes to fruition in three years’ time—as the hon. Gentleman and I hope it will—we shall be able to learn a great deal from it about best practice which could be applied to other industries.
	I think we would all agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) that Parliament should be made more relevant to people’s needs. I do not necessarily agree with some of the solutions he suggested, but I would certainly welcome a debate on the subject. One of the issues that we must address is the under-representation of different communities and women in the House. If we want Parliament to be more relevant to people’s needs, we must ensure that there is a better representation of people from different backgrounds and genders. He may be right in saying that open primaries could be a way of achieving that, but there are a number of other things that we can do. Many of the actions taken by the Government since 2010, such as the introduction of the Backbench Business Committee —as well as the actions taken by Select Committee Chairs to raise the profile of Select Committees and election to them—have led people to believe that Parliament represents their views slightly more effectively than it used to, and some of the polls have confirmed that. Clearly, more can be done. For instance, there is a move to ensure that we enhance the handling of petitions within the online petition system, which I think members of the public will appreciate, too. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contributions to ways in which we can ensure that Parliament reflects people’s needs or is more relevant to them. I am not going to comment on whether there are too many Ministers in the Government, although I point out that in my case I am a Minister but at least I am not paid, so there is no impact on the payroll.
	The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) raised the issue of rail freight, which he campaigns on vigorously. He set out a scheme that is being put forward by the GB freight group at a minimal cost, he said, of £6 billion, which would enable freight to go from Glasgow to the channel tunnel and beyond to Beijing, which would be quite a journey. We would need to take lots of sandwiches and many flasks of tea to get from Glasgow to Beijing on that freight train, but that would certainly open up new markets to freight. I will pass on his interest in that scheme to the Department for Transport. He said Ministers in past Governments and, indeed, the current Government were supportive but he felt the blockage may be elsewhere.
	The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) raised the issue of housing. It was also mentioned by a number of other Members. I would like to put on record some of the progress we have made. Almost 420,000 homes have been built since April 2010. The new housing construction output is now at its highest level since the crash in 2008 and housing starts are at the highest level since 2007 as well. We are therefore making progress. We believe that by the end of this Government we will have more affordable homes than there were at the start of the Government, something previous Governments have not achieved. We expect to deliver 165,000 new homes in three years. That will be the fastest rate of delivery in the past 20 years. I agree with him that increasing house building can address many issues beyond those of homelessness, overcrowding and employment. He also raised the issue of the impact of immigration on the housing shortage. Clearly, the UK has seen substantial inward migration. That is something the Government are now starting to tackle, and clearly immigration does have an impact on housing.
	I had an interesting meeting a couple of weeks ago with an organisation called Pocket which is trying to develop, on a relatively small scale, on areas of land in London that are perhaps difficult for larger developers to use, and which would provide housing for those caught in the middle—people who will never be able to access affordable housing because of their income, but who in London at least are very unlikely to be able to afford to buy housing because of the level of house prices. That sort of initiative can make a contribution.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out that cycling is not easy in rural areas. I agree: the distances might be greater and it may be hillier and windier. Those who advocate cycling, including me, do not all argue that everyone has to cycle wherever they live and whatever distances are involved. He rightly highlighted the issue of fuel costs and the impact they can have, particularly on people in rural areas. I know colleagues from all parties—particularly those from rural areas and places like Scotland—are very concerned about that. He welcomed the measures the Government are taking to address fuel costs and I know he would like us to go further, but the Government are aware of the issue and we are doing as much as we can.
	The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) referred to having the country’s first state-sponsored Hindu primary school in his constituency, and said that it is now going to have the first state-sponsored Hindu secondary school. I wish the schools well. He also mentioned Anmer Lodge, and expressed concerns about the scale of that development. His contribution highlighted the difficulties that any area faces when trying to address the housing issue. As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, we need to increase provision but local residents need to feel that that is being done in a way that does not present a challenge to them.
	The hon. Member for Harrow East is clearly not going to be buying a season ticket for Barnet football club. Indeed, he probably would not be given one if he asked. Many Members will have football clubs in residential areas of their constituencies, and they can have a significant impact. I do not know whether that is the case in his
	constituency, but the problems can be exacerbated in that kind of environment. I am sure that his concerns will be listened to in the appropriate places.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital, saying that he wanted the development of that centre of excellence to happen as soon as possible. He will have noticed that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) is in her place and that she heard his speech. That subject is on her agenda, and she is aware of his concerns. He also mentioned the difficulty of getting in and out of Stanmore station because there was no lift, and I understand his reasons for wanting action to be taken on that as soon as possible.
	The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) talked about a variety of issues. He mentioned the “Shaping a healthier future” programme. He and other Members will have received proposals with names that, on the face of it, sound positive but which might not be to everyone’s satisfaction, given the impact they could have on the local health service. The Department of Health, NHS England and the trusts need to take into account the medical benefits of specialisation—as happened in London, for example, in relation to stroke services—as well as the possible disbenefit that can derive from a lack of access to local services. The right balance needs to be struck.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to his campaign to oppose a third runway at Heathrow. As the Liberal Democrats’ party spokesman on aviation back in 1997, I confirmed at the time that our policy was to oppose a third runway, and we have not deviated from that position since then. On housing, he referred to the refusal to respond to freedom of information requests relating to a wide range of issues. It is incumbent on all local authorities, and the Government, to be as open and helpful as possible in relation to FOI requests.
	The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has apologised for leaving the debate early. I understand that he had to catch a train. He referred to the need to take action in relation to the missing link between the M4 and the M5. He also rightly concentrated on the importance of regenerating the city of Gloucester and the Greater Blackfriars area. From his description, the area certainly sounds ripe for investment and will provide an opportunity to deliver a vision for the city.
	Members will be pleased to hear that I have nearly finished. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) referred to the need for a maritime patrol aircraft. He explained some of the technical advantages of being able to see not only what was on the surface but also what was below it. That is an invaluable asset when dealing with submarines. He also said that we needed to work in partnership with our allies. That is something that I welcome, although there could be times when it is difficult to achieve. He will know that defence procurement is an area in which the Government have had to take action to address significant overruns. However, he could not have put his request for the maritime patrol aircraft more clearly, and I will ensure that those in the Ministry of Defence see his speech and respond to him on that point.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, I am on to my last note, which says “Thank you” at the top, so thank you for chairing this debate so ably. I thank also all Members who have taken part in what has been a fairly comprehensive
	tour, from butterflies on the A4 to the Maldives. I conclude by thanking my officials who have worked in supporting me today, and the House authorities for keeping us safe. I hope everyone has an absolutely fantastic Easter.

Eleanor Laing: Unusually, I think the House should thank the Minister for his extremely thorough response to the debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Kerry McCarthy: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to discuss an issue that is important not just to me personally and to my family, but to those constituents who have families or friends with cystic fibrosis and have written to me recently in support of the Cystic Fibrosis campaign. I thank also the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and the Bristol Adult Cystic Fibrosis Centre for their assistance in preparing for today’s debate, and those with whom I trekked across the desert in Jordan back in February to raise funds for the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. I am so grateful to the many people who sponsored me on that trek and, in particular, to those constituents, many of whom were not known to me personally, who were very generous with their contributions.
	I chose to join the trek because I have a nine-year-old niece, Maisie, who has cystic fibrosis. Almost everyone who went on that trek to Petra had a relative, spouse, partner or friend with CF. so as well as being a fantastic if physically challenging experience, it was also useful for me, as we went through the mountains and the desert, to speak to people about their experience of dealing with family and friends with CF.
	CF is an inherited disease that affects more than 10,000 people in the UK. One in 25 people carries the CF gene, and if both parents are carriers there is a 25% chance that their child will have CF—so one in 2,500 babies born in the UK has cystic fibrosis. My niece was diagnosed on Christmas eve when she was only a few weeks old. She had been losing weight and her parents were worried so they took her into hospital. But, thankfully, since 2007 newborn babies have been routinely screened, and that is very welcome.
	CF is a genetic deficit that causes the production of thick mucus which predominantly affects the lungs and digestive system. The symptoms include a persistent cough, breathing difficulties and repeated chest infections. It also affects the pancreas, meaning that fatty foods in particular and fat-soluble vitamins are not digested or absorbed properly, causing malnutrition, poor growth and diarrhoea. This means that people with CF generally need between 20% to 50% more calories than average, and one third of them go on to develop CF-related diabetes.
	Treatment varies because the condition can vary from person to person. Some people are not diagnosed and do not realise they have the symptoms of CF until they are an adult, as was the case with one lad on the trek with me. He was in his mid-20s and had been diagnosed at 18, so he had a milder form of the disease without the pancreatic symptoms. Treatment can vary according to how severe a person’s condition is, but it usually involves daily time-consuming physiotherapy, an oral nebuliser and, occasionally, intravenous antibiotics and having to take enzyme tablets when food is swallowed.
	Patients are susceptible to cross-infection, which sadly means it is not a good idea for people with CF to come into contact with each other. That is where online forums have become valuable, because people with cystic fibrosis can now talk to each other about their condition.
	I want to flag up the Twitter account @CFAware, which I have only just come across. It retweets people who have contacted it with anecdotes about how cystic fibrosis affects their lives and about their treatment. It has been really valuable to me in informing what I know of the illness.
	Cystic fibrosis used to be known as a childhood disease because life expectancy was so short. When the Cystic Fibrosis Trust was founded in 1964, a child born with CF was not expected to live beyond the age of five. Advancements now mean that half the people with CF are expected to live beyond 41 years, and the life expectancy continues to rise—indeed, I was told the other day that a child born today with CF could expect to live into his or her 50s. That progress is, of course, very welcome, but it has implications for people with CF and their families, and for treatment and public policy, which I want to focus on this afternoon.
	One recent breakthrough was the development of ivacaftor—the brand name is Kalydeco—a tablet treatment that addresses the genetic causes of CF, but that is valuable only for those with the G551D mutation, who comprise just 4% of CF patients. For them, the fact that this drug is now available reduces CF to a manageable lifelong condition—it is something they can live with, rather than a deteriorating condition—so the confirmation that this drug would be funded in England from January last year was an unimaginable relief. The drug demonstrates why investment in research and drug development, and in gene therapy, is so crucial. If a drug were found that could help the remaining 96%, the cost of providing it could be prohibitive, but of course that should not prevent our carrying out the research and continually trying to find better treatment, better genetic experiments and, ultimately, a cure for CF.
	In the more immediate term, patients need a focus on the care and support available to them. Bristol is fortunate to have both a specialist paediatric centre at Bristol children’s hospital and, next door, an adult CF centre at the Bristol Royal infirmary, where I met staff and patients when I visited last week. It has a multi-disciplinary team comprising consultants, nurses, dieticians, physiotherapists, pharmacists, psychologists and a social worker. It was clear from my visit that each and every member makes a vital contribution to the treatment and well-being of CF patients there. The dieticians’ input is crucial in trying to help them maintain a healthy weight and deal with the added complication of diabetes. Psychologists are there to help with the psychological impact of having a life-limiting disease or the trauma of waiting for a lung transplant—that is an issue I will return to later. The medics I met also emphasised the importance of the social worker’s role.
	The team also helps patients and families cope with the transition from paediatric to adult services at the age of 18. That comes at a time when not only are teenagers struggling with all the usual things that teenagers struggle with and they are perhaps making that transition into managing the condition themselves—by carrying out their own physiotherapy and administering drugs themselves, rather than having their parents do it for them—but their condition is likely to start deteriorating. Young adulthood is often the time when there is a dramatic decline in the health of CF sufferers, so having expert specialists, as well as exercise facilities and in-patient
	beds, at the specialist unit in Bristol, in a dedicated space for CF, which stops the risk of cross-infection, too—patients have their own rooms—is really important.
	It is important to remember that many patients are trying to balance employment with their treatment: 70% of adults with CF who completed an employment questionnaire for the CF Trust were in work or education. Many of these patients are trying to administer treatment, such as IVs, at home and have to struggle with the equipment; they are trying to manage the costs of travelling to the specialist centre; and they may well be trying to apply for the assistance to which they are entitled from the Department for Work and Pensions. Indeed, the financial pressures are considerable, and one consequence of CF having been a “childhood disease” is that it was not included in the prescription charge exemptions, so patients now reaching adulthood face significant bills for their cocktail of medication. As we know, the prescription charge increased last week to £8.05.

Bob Russell: I hope that when the Minister responds she will explain why successive Governments refused to acknowledge the very strong arguments that the hon. Lady has made about how the disease was once a childhood condition whereby people never made it beyond being teenagers but now people make it to adulthood and they are having to pay prescription charges—if they are in employment—to stay alive. People who self-abuse their body and become drug addicts receive state funding, but people who have been served by mother nature in this way do not get the help. The Government should give that help.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that he has campaigned on this issue for many years. To people who think that early-day motions are a magic bullet that will solve things overnight, I point to the hon. Gentleman, who managed to get an early-day motion calling for the removal of prescription charges for cystic fibrosis patients. I think that his early-day motion has been No. 1 on the list for many, many years, but it has not yet managed to progress. He also had a debate on the issue last year. I sometimes use him as an example of how early-day motions do not automatically mean that the Government will sit up and listen, but I hope that the Minister will listen today and hear our plea.
	The previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), recognised this issue, and his Government committed to phasing out prescription charges for people with long-term health conditions, but we did not manage to do it before the 2010 general election.
	Some people with cystic fibrosis will be forced to make the difficult decision to give up work, but research conducted last year by the Cystic Fibrosis Trust with Parkinson’s UK, the Multiple Sclerosis Society and the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society reported that Atos found 45% of people with these progressive conditions fit to work. Obviously, it has now been belatedly acknowledged that the assessments carried out by Atos were far too unreliable. Most worryingly, some people with cystic fibrosis were given “prognosis reports” of when they would recover from the illness—an illness from which it is impossible to recover.
	Critically, welfare reforms may increase the barriers to getting to work and hospital appointments—not least the new personal independence payment and the 20 metres mobility limit. A survey of people with CF found that more than a third would no longer be able to work if they were not awarded the higher rate of mobility under the new PIP, while 90% said they would find it difficult to access hospital appointments. In a survey for the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, a third said that they would not be able to attend hospital appointments. The trust also warns that patients fear isolation and loss of independence, which would affect their mental health.
	When I visited the Bristol adult cystic fibrosis centre last week, it was explained to me how the trust and the centre fundraise to help the service and the patients. For instance, they buy more nebulisers to lend to patients. The ordinary nebulisers are huge and cumbersome, but the nice neat little ones are far more expensive. The trust and centre want to help patients manage their condition with the least amount of inconvenience. They fundraise to buy the smaller nebulisers. They also buy physio equipment, because it is really important for CF patients to undertake exercise to loosen up the mucus on their lungs. They buy fridges for patients’ medication and desks for their rooms—as I said earlier, patients need their own rooms to avoid cross-contamination.
	The Bristol centre is clearly making an invaluable difference to its patients’ lives, but it has a growing patients list, which is due in part to the very welcome increases in life expectancy. I understand that Bristol’s patient numbers are increasing in line with the national average—by around 10% each year—and the patient case load has doubled over the past six years to around 200. I think the Manchester centre has about 600 patients and is the largest in the country.
	With the Bristol centre, the transfer of patients from further afield, such as from Taunton and Swindon, has contributed to the growth in numbers. This year, it is also taking on patients from Cheltenham and Bath.
	Patients are often admitted for a course of intravenous antibiotics, which they will generally need about three times a year, with the antibiotics being administered about three times a day for a couple of weeks. Some patients can self-administer at home, but that is not always appropriate or safe, depending on their living conditions and how ill they are. Sometimes it may just be that they have not been monitored by the team for a while, so they will be admitted to the centre. I met a young woman who had just started work. She had an understanding employer. She had been in her new job for two weeks and then decided that she needed to go into hospital to have the intravenous antibiotics. She felt much safer there than administering a course of treatment at home, which was her normal way of doing things. The condition clearly requires considerate employers.
	It seems that hospital admissions at specialist CF centres are becoming increasingly difficult to plan for and more prone to cancellation because the units cannot guarantee a bed will be available. It seems that, particularly in winter months, the specialist beds also come under pressure from other departments, which have a shortage of beds. Ordinary patients may be put in a CF unit, and the CF patients cannot get the treatment that they need. In Bristol, the annual number of in-patient “bed days” required by patients for their IV antibiotics has increased
	from just over 500 in 2005 to nearly 2,500. That is due to the number of patients, and not because the length of stay is increasing.
	Over the past few years in particular, there has been a steeper rise in the number of bed days at home, which is now at more than 3,500 annually. The unit is trying to facilitate more self-care at home and has developed an outreach service so that patients do not always have to travel to Bristol. It also tries to offer community liaison and health care at home, for example to help with IVs, and is developing innovative ways to help patients, including through an agreement with BUPA to deliver supplies to the homes. There can be huge amount of equipment and pills and so on, and patients who have to use public transport to get to the hospital, perhaps not feeling very well as they are travelling, do not want to have to carry huge amounts of drugs and equipment around with them. That delivery service is proving very useful. Staffing and resources, however, mean that the centre has limited capacity for outreach and community services.
	Importantly, the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust is working with the centre and has increased funding for specialist staff but, more generally, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust told me that specialist CF centres around the UK are reporting that resources, personnel and space provision are inadequate and warns that in light of the increasing patient numbers nationally the lack of capacity for in-patient beds, combined with a lack of funding for out-patient staff, threatens to curtail the clear progress made over the past few decades. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could update us on the Department of Health’s plans to ensure that CF services are equipped to keep up with increasing patient numbers and the complexity of the condition and assure me that she will work with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, the specialist centres and their expert staff. Will she also consider the issue of co-ordination between trusts? For example, CF patients who phone an ambulance will often not be taken to the specialist centres even though their consultants recommend it.
	Some patients will be assessed and referred for a lung transplant and, as the Minister will be aware, last month the Cystic Fibrosis Trust launched its “Hope for more” campaign. Although a lung transplant is not appropriate for everyone with CF and does not cure it, it can mean the priceless gift of a few more years for the patient and their family. Tragically, though, one in three people with CF on the lung transplant waiting list will die before they can receive one, so the Cystic Fibrosis Trust is campaigning to maximise the use of organs and increase the number of organs available for transplant.
	One tragic case was that of Kerry Thorpe, a very brave young woman who became the face of the organ donor campaign. She died only a few weeks ago at the end of March at the age of 23, because new lungs could not be found for her. She spent seven years on the waiting list. Today, I was sent an account from the Daily Record of another 23-year-old, Lynette Armitage, who had a lung transplant in December in an eight-and-a-half-hour operation. She asked surgeons whether she could have a photo of her old lungs when they removed them, but they told her that the lungs had completely disintegrated when they had taken them out. They were only held together by her rib cage and the surgeons said that if she had not had a transplant within the
	next two weeks, she would have died. The lungs got to her just in time. It might be that she lives for another seven years or so, which is the average, but some people who have had transplants can live into their 50s or 60s. She is talking about having a normal life, having children and looking forward to going to T in the Park this year. That just shows what a difference can be made if lungs can be found: two 23-year-olds with very different outcomes.
	There are a number of ways to reduce the length of time people are waiting and, critically, to reduce the number of deaths. That includes increasing organ donation rates and promoting more public discussion on organ donation. Less than a third of donors are registered, so it is not necessarily an obstacle if someone is not on the register. The Cystic Fibrosis Trust reports that the UK has one of the highest rates of family refusal in the western world. I am not suggesting that this is an easy decision for bereaved families to make during such a difficult and emotionally charged period, particularly if the family member has died suddenly, but it is nevertheless an indication of the need to focus on consent as well as registration and to ensure that more people understand what an incredible and generous gift they can give to other people if they sign up to be donors.
	The organ donation taskforce led to a 50% increase in the number of deceased donors and a 30.5% increase in transplants in the five years to 2013. That was important progress, but I am sure the Minister will agree there is still more to be done. I would be grateful if she could update us on the “Taking Organ Transplantation to 2020” strategy and the latest assessment of the case for an opt-out system. I know that Wales is moving to a system of presumed consent next year.
	As the Cystic Fibrosis Trust has highlighted, it is not only a case of increasing donor rates, as significant numbers of donor lungs are not used, despite the next of kin giving their consent. Lungs from fewer than 25% of donors after brain death are utilised in transplantation. Medical innovation means that more lungs could be used, and the trust has called for more transplant surgeons to be trained in downsizing donor lungs. It has also funded a study at the university of Newcastle on ex-vivo lung perfusion, a technique for the assessment and potential repair of sub-optimal lungs. That was explained to me as a service where damaged lungs are reconditioned so that they are fit for use in transplants. I urge the Minister to consider the results of that study, and whether such techniques could increase the number of suitable donor organs.
	In recommending the development of a national lung allocation system, the report focuses on a concern amongst the cystic fibrosis community about the equity of lung allocation, and whether they go to those most in need, irrespective of where the person lives. I am aware that NHSBT has developed a new super-urgent group, separate from the main waiting list, but the Cystic Fibrosis Trust emphasises that that is unlikely to have a significant impact on people with cystic fibrosis waiting for a transplant. It also highlights the evidence from the USA, where the introduction of the lung allocation system led to an increase in the number of transplants and a significant reduction in the number of people with cystic fibrosis dying while on the waiting list.

Kate Green: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of allocation of lungs for transplant. In the north-west of England we have poor levels of transplant. People wait longer and are more likely to die on the waiting list. Does she agree that it is important that the Minister presses for the modelling, which I understand is being carried out, on the impact of a national allocation scheme to be given great attention and accelerated if possible, so that we can have the evidence on the benefits of such a scheme in this country as quickly as possible?

Kerry McCarthy: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I have said, it makes such a difference if more people come forward as donors, not just for lung transplants but for many other types of donation as well, from blood through to other organs. I urge the Minister to give this the utmost priority, because, as we have said, it can make such a difference to people’s lives.
	The Department of Health has advised that the most recent analysis showed no significant difference in allocation across UK lung transplant centres. But the Cystic Fibrosis Trust clearly believes that an improved allocation system could address the shocking fact that one in three cystic fibrosis patients die before they get to the top of the waiting list. So I ask the Minister to review this with NHSBT, and consider the evidence from the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. It would also be helpful if she could provide more information on the current review by the cardiothoracic organs advisory group, and say whether it is considering a national allocation system, as referred to by my hon. Friend, or consulting with stakeholders such as the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and specialist centres, and when it is likely to report.
	The “Hope for more” report also highlights that 62% of survey respondents reported that psychosocial support during the whole transplant process is insufficient, and concludes that
	“The demand for services that assist the family and individuals in coping with cystic fibrosis is drastically underestimated”.
	In response to a parliamentary question that I tabled, the Minister explained that decisions on psychosocial support are a matter for clinicians and commissioners, but I would urge further consideration of the report’s findings and how the Department of Health can help to improve provision and ensure that clinicians have the resources that they need, working with commissioners to address gaps in information, support and psychosocial services for patients waiting for a transplant and post-operative.
	It is clear that the specialist centres, working with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, are making an incalculable difference to their patients’ lives. The trust is putting real money into the provision of services for cystic fibrosis patients. In 2012-13, the trust contributed more than £1.6 million to research projects, and more than £1.1 million to clinical care. It also provides a helpline that takes more than 3,000 calls every year, and it is able to provide limited welfare grants to people with cystic fibrosis and their families who are, understandably, struggling with the impact the condition can have on their lives.
	I congratulate the Cystic Fibrosis Trust on its work and all those people that I met at the cystic fibrosis centre in Bristol, who were so dedicated and keen to get across to me that with more resources they would be
	able to do an even better job in coping with the increased number of patients. I hope that the Minister takes that on board.

Jane Ellison: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on securing this debate. She made a wide-ranging speech demonstrating a very deep knowledge of this subject. She alluded to her own family connection to this condition. Obviously, I convey my best wishes to her constituents, particularly to her family and especially to her niece, who is, as she described, suffering from the condition.
	I commend the hon. Lady’s recent achievement in raising funds for the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. That is an excellent achievement for an excellent charity; she is right to be generous in paying tribute to it. I am sure she will be interested to know that in recent weeks many Members of Parliament have contacted me in support of the trust’s current campaign on behalf of the 10,000 or so people in the UK who battle with the everyday challenge, which she so eloquently described, of living with cystic fibrosis.
	Let me take this opportunity, as I like to do, to pay tribute to those who work in our NHS and their dedication, determination and commitment to provide a first-class care service to all patients, not least CF patients. I pay tribute to them for their efforts, all the time, on behalf of all of us and all our constituents.
	Let me first speak more generally about organ transplants and the challenges of organ transplantation. In the UK, the need for an organ is greater than the number of donor organs available. About 8,000 people are on the national transplant list waiting for a transplant that will save their lives or significantly improve their quality of life. Unfortunately, too many people wait too long for a suitable organ to be donated. About 1,000 people a year die waiting—about three adults or children every day. That applies to organs in general. Many others lose their lives before they even get on the transplant list. As of 3 April this year, 75 people with cystic fibrosis were waiting for a lung transplant. About 50 cystic fibrosis patients receive a transplant each year, but unfortunately about 20 patients die each year on the transplant list. We can see the clear challenge to meet that need and assist those people.
	This means that there has to be a system to ensure that patients are treated equitably and that donated organs are allocated in a fair and unbiased way based on the patient’s clinical need and the importance of achieving the closest possible match between donor and recipient. A number of factors are involved. The rules for allocating organs are drawn up by the medical profession in consultation with other health professionals, specialist solid organ advisory groups, and health administrations. Factors such as the blood group, tissue type, and age and size of the donor and the recipient are taken into account to direct the allocation of the organ and identify the best-matched patient or, alternatively, the transplant unit to which the organ is to be offered.
	The Cystic Fibrosis Trust report “Hope for all”, published on 10 March this year, makes a number of recommendations focusing on three key aspects: increasing the number of organs donated for transplantation; making sure that we make best use of the donated organs; and
	making sure that patients are fully involved in decisions about their care. We continue to invest in the donation programme to optimise transplantation in the UK. In the five years between April 2008 and April 2013, donation rates rose by 50.3% and transplant rates rose by 30%. That is a record of good and significant progress in recent years. I pay tribute to NHSBT for the work it has done in this regard, alongside other health professionals and the charities. Encouragingly, donor and transplant rates continue to rise, and we see that pattern this year as well. However, we know we can do more to match the successful donation programmes in some other countries —as the hon. Lady said, there are other countries with better records—and to give more people the opportunity of a transplant.
	As the hon. Lady and other hon. Members may know, a new seven-year UK-wide organ donation and transplantation strategy, “Taking Organ Transplantation to 2020”, was published in July last year. The strategy expressed the desire to make the UK system comparable with the best in the world. Within that, it aims for a rate of consent—the hon. Lady specifically talked about consent rates—of above 80%; it is currently 55%. Increasingly, consent is the most important strategic aim—interestingly, more so than donation. Spain achieved a consent rate of 84% in 2011—a remarkable achievement. We know that we have particular challenges in relation to consent rates in black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, which I have discussed at length with NHSBT and which hon. Members are aware of. I know of hon. Members not present here today who have done specific work in some of their local black and minority ethnic communities to raise awareness on this point. I would like to see us do more of that and use parliamentarians to do so.

Kerry McCarthy: It is perhaps remiss of me not to have mentioned in my speech the fact that in the past year Bristol has had its first Muslim lord mayor who, during his year as lord mayor, chose to focus on encouraging blood and organ donation from the BME communities. As his term of office is almost up, I ought to take this opportunity to congratulate Councillor Faruk Choudhury on that effort.

Jane Ellison: I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the lord mayor. That is exactly the sort of local leadership that can help. One of the big pluses of the devolution of public health to local government is that we see such leadership from people who know their community best and understand the diversity in their locality. I am keen to encourage that. Only recently we celebrated examples in other areas, where we saw that specific leadership in some communities where health outcomes were not as good as they could be. We are always looking for such opportunities, and I am delighted that the hon. Lady has taken the opportunity to highlight local leadership in that regard.
	Our focus in the strategy is initially on increasing consent rates. We want people to support transplantation. We can all imagine that families are being asked to agree donation at probably one of the worst times in their life, but many families find that they get comfort from knowing they have helped others to live. We will keep a close eye on what happens in Wales following the changes there, to which the hon. Lady alluded. NHSBT also keeps international experience under careful review. I mentioned the good success rates in Spain, for example.
	We need to make sure that we make the best use of the donated organs. Currently donor lungs are procured by a retrieval team and allocated to the transplant centre on a zonal basis, based on the location of the donor. The transplant team at the centre will decide whether or not to accept the lungs and will select the most appropriate recipient.
	The trust’s report recommends the implementation of a national lung allocation system whereby donor lungs are given to the most urgent patients, regardless of where they live.
	This is something that NHSBT’s cardiothoracic organs advisory group, which includes both lung clinicians and lay membership, will be considering very shortly, and in particular whether we should introduce a national lung allocation scheme for people who need a lung transplant urgently, with all remaining donor lungs continuing to be allocated on a zonal basis. The advisory group’s recommendations will then be considered by NHSBT’s transplant policy review committee, and if a change of allocation procedures is agreed, it will be implemented as soon as the governance arrangements can be put in place.

Kate Green: Will the Minister clarify whether the work that is going on now to review the allocation system is looking at the possibility of a national allocation system only for urgent cases, or whether it will also consider the advantages and disadvantages of a national allocation system in all cases?

Jane Ellison: I imagine that the advisory group is considering that, but I would rather check and get back to the hon. Lady after the debate. I should have thought that it was looking at the broader issue, but I will come back to her, if that is acceptable, and confirm that after the debate. It goes without saying that I will follow up this debate with NHSBT, which I am sure will be extremely interested to know that Parliament has an interest in the subject. We will revert to any hon. Member to whom I am not able to respond in detail.
	The issues are complicated. I have only begun to get a sense of some of that complexity, partly in preparing for this evening’s debate. NHSBT will wish to be certain that any change of policy can be introduced in a fair and safe manner. We need also to ensure that people with cystic fibrosis receive the best quality of care for them and are involved in decisions about that. NHS England has published two CF service specifications, one for adults and one for children, recognising that, although similar, adults and children with CF have differing needs and it is important that the services provided should reflect that.
	NICE has issued technology appraisal guidance recommending appropriate drug therapies—one of which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol East—in certain clinical circumstances, which NHS commissioners are required to fund where clinicians want to use them. The Government also fund a range of
	research on cystic fibrosis, in particular through the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research.
	The hon. Lady alluded to the need for research, so she may be interested to know that the MRC is funding a £3.3 million trial of repeated application of gene therapy for patients with cystic fibrosis. That is being undertaken by the UK Cystic Fibrosis Gene Therapy Consortium, which comprises world-leading teams at Imperial college London and the universities of Oxford and Edinburgh. The trial is testing whether gene therapy can improve the lung function of cystic fibrosis patients and its report is due to be published in May 2015. I am sure we will all await the review with interest. It has the potential for interesting and exciting breakthroughs.
	I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me for responding to her points about benefits by saying that I will draw them to the attention of my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions. The issue is not in my remit, but her points have been noted and are on the record.
	On prescription charges, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who has campaigned long and hard—but not successfully today—on the issue. I am afraid I do not have a response for him today, but I will get back to him after the debate.
	I think I have covered most of the points that have been made. The hon. Lady raised specific points about local arrangements. Some interesting work is going on between the Royal United hospital in Bath and the Bristol adult cystic fibrosis centre at Bristol University hospital. They are looking at specialist commissioning and I think NHS England is looking to commission a model of adult CF care. I will look at the record after the debate and will draw that particular section of the hon. Lady’s speech to the attention of NHS England representatives, because some of the decisions about clinical care and commissioning sit with them. I will make sure they have a copy of the debate and I will ask them to respond directly to the hon. Lady on the issues within their remit.
	In conclusion, I hope I have reassured the hon. Lady and other interested Members that we want to provide the best possible care for cystic fibrosis patients. Service specifications are in place to define that care and what great care looks like. We continue to do all we can to increase organ donation rates, with some notable recent success. We will look in particular at the issue of increasing consent rates so that we can give many more people the opportunity of a transplant. I have referred to the review, which is particularly germane to the current campaign, and I will ensure that interested Members are alerted to its outcome.
	I will end by wishing colleagues, hon. Members, Madam Deputy Speaker and the staff of the House a pleasant Easter recess.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.